The Picture of Dorian Gray
discussion
The image of Oscar Wilde
date
newest »
newest »
Stephan wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "1- To what an extent, prior knowledge, in regard to the author's personal life, has an affect on your judgment of a book, as a reader?That depends on the author in question. Fo..."
Interesting thoughts. Wilde was an enigma in of himself, really. His romantic and sexual liaisons with Bosie (as well as his other lovers) both pained him and elated him. He found the forbidden nature of his love exciting and tantalizing. He appreciated Bosie's aesthetic beauty (as an artist would) and his nature. Perhaps felt a little flattered that such a handsome young man paid him any attention. For I think Wilde did have a few insecurities about himself.
Yet I think he secretly did not like hiding himself. Wilde was adept at hiding insults in plain view. His plays are testament to that, I think. However, he did secretly campaign for the decriminalization of homosexuality during his time. So I think he did seek approval from the very society he insulted and rebelled against. Or at the very least sought the freedom to be himself. Wilde built up this dandy flitty facade, but I can't help but wonder how much of himself did he truly show to society.
For instance his trial. Wilde, being the frivolous bored dandy, filled with Hubris sued Bosie's father for slander. No doubt this arose from his experiences of controlling the room in conversation and overestimating his own abilities to do so in a court of law. And perhaps part of it was his own rebellious nature, he probably did it more for fun than anything else. Yet one must wonder if he did so in another of his attempts to expose the hypocrisy and unfair morals of Victorian society. So he could stand up, look them in the eye and stop lying. To show them that a gay man could be much more than they initially thought. It didn't go his way, obviously.
I have not yet heard of pedophile authors, to be honest. I have heard of books that explore the subject, to varying degrees of comfort and honesty. But never an author who was one themselves. Perhaps I need to take more notice of the publishing world.
I think Catcher in the Rye started out as one of those love or loathe books. But like you said, society tends to be very sheep like. Merely parroting intellectual critiques and phrases about the book itself. No doubt it has it's fans, of course. But I do agree that Salinger doesn't hold a candle to Wilde's talent.
Wow, interesting discussion! Miraculously, when I first read Oscar Wilde I never knew he was gay, never even gave it a thought. I just loved his work and still do.I'll take a stab at your questions! :)
I will answer regarding fiction books only.
1- To what an extent, prior knowledge, in regard to the author's personal life, has an affect on your judgment of a book, as a reader?
Usually I just want to read a book because it looks good, and I pay little attention to the author's background. If I really love the book then I start investigating the author.
2- Can you remain unaffected by such knowledge?
Well, yes, because if I love the book, I love it, period. But knowledge of the author is always interesting.
3- Do you believe that it is fair to judge a story because of facts pertaining the author's life?
No. Not 'fair', but it may be give insight and perspective to find out what motivated that author, etc.
4- Can you give an example, either positive or negative, as to how personal details about an author have affected your view/review in regard to a certain book?
It would always be positive if I like the author's writing. If I don't like the author's writing,it will not matter much. I tried reading Twilght and hated it. When I found out Meyer was a Mormon it made no difference, I still hated the book. BUT it was interesting to think about a Mormon writing vamp novels, hmmm. When I found out Wilde was gay it made no difference to me, I still loved his work... BUT I was completely horrified when I heard of his arrest, the intolerance of the times and circumstances he lived in...
5- Would you consider a review of a book biased when the reader judged it also because of a personal opinion in regard to the author?
Yes, of course it would be biased!
Jamie Lynn wrote: "If Oscar was alive today he would be arrested for sex with minors. He pushed a "men loving boys" agenda. Homosexuality wouldn't be the problem. Also pimping out teens. He was paying curriers high..."
Oh everyone did that back in those days. It was pretty unspoken, true, but very common.
On the sex with minors thing, that might be subject to where he would be living.
Where I live, Australia, for example, if you are 16 you can legally have sex. Except if the other person is 7 years your senior. Same in England, where Wilde is from, unless the other person is over 18 and in a position of trust (like a guardian.)
And as you yourself hinted at his "escorts" were actually teenagers. They are not boys and even NAMBLA as an example (btw ewww!!!!) for the most part isn't actually after teenagers. BOY in their sick little title is just that. A boy!
So it's not entirely accurate to paint Wilde as someone who pushed "man boy love." At least not how we understand it.
I mean, people think kids grow up fast now? How about during the Industrial Revolution?! With kids as young as 5 working horrendous jobs/hours, no real protections from any sort of laws for quite some time and usually married whilst still in their adolescence. You can't exactly equate a teenager from Wilde's time to one of ours. They had an entirely different view on how long childhood was and the roles children, teenagers and young adults played in society.
For example in Wilde's time, it wasn't uncommon for a lady to be married and have a kid at aged 15! So it's not like his society (or even ours to an extent) was some sort of bastion for the sexual innocence of minors!
The whole legal age requirement for sex is a pretty recent addition to our society and laws. Even more recent is the recognition of the effects sexual abuse has on children and even then it took a little while for our society to put up safe guards and safety nets for sexually abused children. And even to this day, society, whether they realize it or not, compounds the stress, guilt and shame felt by survivors.
And it was Bosie who was into little boys, Oscar was into younger men (and yes, that includes teen boys, as being into teenagers is generally not considered pedophilic, at least not in the clinical sense.)
Exactly so! Children after age 7 were actually considered adults. And the concept of 'teenager' was unknown until the post WWII United States.
Christine wrote: "Exactly so! Children after age 7 were actually considered adults. And the concept of 'teenager' was unknown until the post WWII United States."Thank you! At least someone else realizes the importance of context!
YW Somerandom! :) It is so interesting, we have a bunch of book discussions here on GR and so many people seem to not understand context, everyone immediately jumps to current times and how life is interpreted NOW. It would take SO MUCH away from literature if it were all 'modernized' to fit today's standards.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "It came out in his court hearings that he was into teens."He lived during the 19th century. Of course he was into teenagers! So was the rest of society at the time! During Wilde's hearing, it wasn't the fact that he was into teenagers that caused scandal and uproar, it was the fact that they were of the same sex.
For back then it was common for a much older man to marry a 14 year old girl! So clearly, back then they saw "teenagers" as adults. You're basically accusing the man of being a product of his upbringing and time period!
Oh what a horrid crime! /sarcasm
But because Wilde was into the same sex (and threatened to expose the hypocrisy of all the higher ups, for "rent boys" were used by practically everyone!) society saw it as "leading/luring young men into homosexuality/depravity." Not as having sex with minors, for that concept and subsequent laws wouldn't arise for quite some time.
And that is not boy love. It's not even pedophilia, even in our modern context! (Excepting layman vernacular, but that's not known for scientific accuracy at the best of times.)
Hell, back then the concept of teenager barely existed. It took another century for us to even know that sex with minors causes them irreparable harm.
It probably took even longer for us to actually do something about it!
And the English Language changes, frequently! You're talking about the word "boy" as it's known in the modern vernacular, a child boy 12 and under. But completly ignoring the fact that Oscar Wilde lived over 200 years ago! The word "boy" would have been used in an entirely different way back then compared to now. Especially considering that back then, in society's eyes, you went from child straight into adulthood. Boy could be used to describe a young man or even a man who looks exceedingly youthful or a teenager.
But the way you're saying it, you're basically trying to make 19th Century English fit our modern definitions. That would cause inaccuracies, to say the very least!
Back in Wilde's time at 14 you were considered old enough (and often seen as your duty) to marry and have kids. Again, they might have referred to teenage guys as "boys" but you can't compare any teenager from Wilde's time to a teenager these days. It's the equivalent of looking at the Middle Ages like "oh my gawd, they's all pedobears cuz they married 12 year old girls."
Ignoring the differences in upbringing, viewed role in society, lifespan and education standards as well as potential differences between the emotional and even physical development back then compared to ours now.
Honestly. Context, mate, context!
Christine wrote: "YW Somerandom! :) It is so interesting, we have a bunch of book discussions here on GR and so many people seem to not understand context, everyone immediately jumps to current times and how l..."
Amen!
I agree! To truly understand something of the past, we cannot allow our modern perceptions color our judgements of practices. We instead need to delve into that time period and perhaps discover why it was so. We could learn a lot like that.
When I first started reading The Picture Of Dorian Gray, I didn't know that Oscar Wilde was gay. However, as I read more and more into the book I started to get the feeling (due to the subtle homosexual tones in the story) that he was gay. This hasn't changed my opinion of neither the book nor the author, given that I am not a supporter of homosexuality. The Picture Of Dorian Gray remains my favorite book.As for your questions:
1- It doesn't affect my general judgment of their work, but maybe it gives some perspective behind their choice of style.
2- Yes, and The Picture Of Dorian Gray is a fine example.
3- No. Literature is literature. I judge based on that and only that.
4- Can't think of any. I only care about the writing no matter who the author is or what they do in their life.
5- Of course, biased and unprofessional.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "It came out in his court hearings that he was into teens."He lived during the 19th century. Of course he was into teenagers! So was the rest of society at th..."
And so did everyone else. It was just a common practice at the time. In fact I still think it is today, to some extent. Now you use the word teenagers but teenagers could mean 13 16 18 or even 19. So which is it?
Also, like I said, back in those days they would have equated all teenagers with adults, giving them different social expectations and thinking of them in a much different light than we do today. Again, you can't equate a teenager in Wilde's time to one of ours today. To do so would ignore the differences in life span, education, social expectations and even the consequences of such accepted practices (there is a theory that social acceptance of sexual encounters with teenagers actually lessens the impact of the trauma. Whether this is true or not, I cannot say. Now, that's not to say that that makes it okay to take advantage of naive minors. Of course not! That is deplorable. But I doubt teens would have been as naive back then as they are now. And again, having sex with teens was just a common practice and would have been taught to Wilde as something normal.
Also, the reaction people have today, whilst understandable may have severe adverse consequences for sexually abused children.) What I'm saying is, you can't blame someone from a past era for outdated practices, like sleeping with teens or racism or even sexism. They just existed as part of the era. We can quite easily condemn them now as we look back. But it's much easier for us to hold these views as we grew up under a totally different upbringing, with a totally different view of the world and with much more access to information. Wilde was a product of his environment and his time. Was he a bad man? No. Arrogant, maybe. A bit of an asshole, most likely. But a bad guy? Ehhhhhh.
Sleeping with teenagers depends entirely on the situation. An 18 year old sleeping with a 20 year old is perfectly legal. I wouldn't recommend it, but I don't know how damaging the experience would be. It might not even phase them, it might be traumatic. Who knows? Puberty is a funny thing. People assume that any sexual activity a young teenager encounters is automatically traumatizing (which could, in effect, cause trauma to some.) But they are unwilling to look at the fact that, even now, puberty doesn't happen the same to everyone. Some will inevitably be more emotionally mature than others and by consequence much more able to process the encounter in a much healthier way. And that teens are having sex with each other at much younger ages. Is that traumatizing to them? Well, maybe to some, not all.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need to lower the age of consent or anything so horrible like that. Just saying that sometimes, teens having sex won't harm them (unless they are taken advantage of by adults. But we know that now, was it known in Wilde's time? Most likely not.)
People process things differently, that's just an inevitability of human psychology.
Today, adults should NOT be going after teenagers, that's a given and rightfully illegal!
But in Wilde's time it was encouraged and practically expected of you.
It's like learning a man from the 1800s was a racist. Wow, alert the media! An outdated man has an outdated view. *Yawn*
By the way, I do agree with you. Wilde was an arrogant asshole. No one is perfect. I just object to labeling him as a "boy lover" or an ephebophile as judged by today's standards. He lived in different circumstances than we do, with entirely different concepts and definitions than today. We can't judge him by today's standards or definitions because he isn't alive today!
I, too object to the labeling of Oscar as a 'boy lover/ pedophile'. Different times!! Here in the United States, even today, we have large discrepancies in the legal age of consent. Some states keep it as young as 14, some states 18.
To me, judging Oscar as a pedophile is kind of like saying -- Romeo and Juliet, how SHOCKING that she was 13 and betrothed to Paris who was like 30. By our standards, we'd cry WHAAAT? pedophilia!! But to their society it was perfectly accepted, for various reasons. (status of women, laws regarding property, etc.) Edgar Allen Poe married his 13 year old cousin. Again, different times. (19th century American south would NOT have considered this marriage wrong, due to economy, customs, etc.)
Boys were not 'boys' in Oscar's times, they were full adults at age 7, working hard labor and getting a lot more 'abuse' than I am certain Oscar would have ever inflicted. (just my opinion)
Remember also, teenagers only became a recognized age group after WWII -- reason being the Baby Boom -- coupled with economic times which made teenagers BIG consumers with disposable (parents') income. (hence they became important enough to actually get a status)
Interesting discussion! :)
Christine wrote: "I, too object to the labeling of Oscar as a 'boy lover/ pedophile'. Different times!! Here in the United States, even today, we have large discrepancies in the legal age of consent. Some state..."
I totally agree! Different times, different standards, different definitions.
Hell as late as the 1950s Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old (who was his cousin once removed.) Totally legal though much of the public did decry him for it. I don't know if that was just because he married a 13 year old, his cousin or just because he was a celebrity and therefore more prone to the hypocritical scrutiny that occurs even to this day.
I had no idea some US states still had the legal consent at age 14. That's kind of interesting.
That is an interesting origin of their status. I do kind of wonder if we've not gone from one extreme to another (again, I would not even consider arguing for lowering the age of consent.)
Because as it stands now even normal teen hormones can get them into legal trouble. Statutory rape between boyfriend and girlfriend/boyfriend, for example. A 16 year old sleeps with his or her partner who is just a few weeks or a month shy of 16 (which is the legal age of consent in Australia.) That 16 year old can technically be arrested and charged with rape. I don't think that's right, unless it was coerced in some way. We can't be so overprotective of hormonal teenagers and try to shield them from sex. Because there are a few incidents where I don't think it will cause harm. Again, the ever so slightly older girlfriend/boyfriend scenario.
I knew he was gay when I read the novel. It had no affect on me whatsoever. He is one of the great wits of all literature. Other gay writes I enjoy include Tennessee Williams and Edward Albee. Their sexual orientation means nothing to me in regards to the quality of their work or the universality of their message.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "If Oscar was alive today he would be arrested for sex with minors. He pushed a "men loving boys" agenda. Homosexuality wouldn't be the problem. Also pimping out teens. He was paying curriers high..."
So wait, he was paying people who brushed horses?
Jamie Lynn wrote: "I don't think the age really matters. They were very young and they were minors. Prostitution of kids is wrong no matter how you look at it. Prostitution is wrong for adults for that matter. I don'..."Of course their age matters. A 13 year old would have more at risk from sexual contact than a more developed 19 year old. (Which probably contributed to the higher mortality rate in childbirth. 13 year old girls, more often than not, were married with kids. Thereby putting them at a higher risk of complications during childbirth, as they were not yet fully developed physically.)
Also since we are talking about an author who valued youthful masculinity I would be surprised if the 13 year old, with their more feminine looking features, would be the go to choice for Wilde. Meaning he would have gone after older teenagers who were most likely above the modern legal age limit and not considered minors even in these modern times.
You want to talk about exploitation of minors? How about the 5 year olds who were sent to work in the mines? How about the chimney sweeps who sent up small children because they were tiny, only to be tossed aside once they reached their preteens because they got too big? And then had to live with the disastrous health consequences for the rest of their lives? How about the Factories who used the children from poor and destitute families as slave labor in order to power the growing Industrial Revolution? Who again, were tossed to the curb the minute they got too big and had to do whatever it took to survive.
We condemn it now, but it was common practice back then. The kids, the teens you speak of, would have been far more savvy than kids now are. Because all of them grew up in a world where you either stole to eat or sold yourself (in more ways than one) to survive. And society for the most part considered it just as another part of life. And all of them, even the well to do kids, lived in a time when childhood was relatively short, meaning their psychological development would differ to our modern times (it could be argued.)
They were all considered adults back then and therefore were considered by the public, including Wilde, the same way we regard adult prostitutes.
No one saw them as minors, they were seen as adults trying to live in a harsh and unforgiving world.
Oscar Wilde, fascinated by youth and aesthetic beauty, would have seen them as young adults, capable of making their own choices in life.
Not a good attitude to have today, but understandable given the era.
Am I excusing this behavior? No. Merely putting it in the proper context. Which is what you seem to ignore.
I come from a country where Prostitution is completely legal. Hell, they even have their own recognized Union here.
I see nothing wrong with an adult choosing for themselves, without coercion, going into the sex industry. As long as they are aware of the potential consequences to their psyches. It's no different to an adult choosing to make pornography. It's the world's oldest profession for a reason. An adult is free to exploit or not exploit their bodies however they see fit. They are the ones who own it, after all.
Wow,
I only saw this discussion today.
I love Oscar Wilde ever since I read the Happy Prince and other stories as a ten year old.
But what I am going to write is not really about him.
It is about celebrities and what matters.
I suppose I am a bit weird that way. I am only interested in sexual orientation and personal lives of people I know personally.
I love tennis and theatre and ballet, but could not care less about what my favourite tennis player, actor or ballet dancer thinks about anything else but their profession, if they are gay or not, what are their political and other opinions. They are not my friends.
Writers are a bit different. But again, if I like their books and I am not offended by the content or opinions there, I do not need to know or care about them as a person.
And by the way, I have nothing against homosexuality- we are not so different- gay or not gay.
To go to extreme, I am Jewish, but I could read a marvellous book written by a Nazi, if the Nazism does not show in the book, finding out later this writer was a Nazi would not bother me, or stop me reading other books he or she wrote.
I occasionally read interviews with my favourite authors, and sometimes I really liked the person they seemed to be, sometimes I did not.
But they are not my friends, they write books I like to read.
Like my favourite tennis players plying the game the way I like to watch.
Sorry about the tennis overload- there is French Open on TV!
Lucie
I only saw this discussion today.
I love Oscar Wilde ever since I read the Happy Prince and other stories as a ten year old.
But what I am going to write is not really about him.
It is about celebrities and what matters.
I suppose I am a bit weird that way. I am only interested in sexual orientation and personal lives of people I know personally.
I love tennis and theatre and ballet, but could not care less about what my favourite tennis player, actor or ballet dancer thinks about anything else but their profession, if they are gay or not, what are their political and other opinions. They are not my friends.
Writers are a bit different. But again, if I like their books and I am not offended by the content or opinions there, I do not need to know or care about them as a person.
And by the way, I have nothing against homosexuality- we are not so different- gay or not gay.
To go to extreme, I am Jewish, but I could read a marvellous book written by a Nazi, if the Nazism does not show in the book, finding out later this writer was a Nazi would not bother me, or stop me reading other books he or she wrote.
I occasionally read interviews with my favourite authors, and sometimes I really liked the person they seemed to be, sometimes I did not.
But they are not my friends, they write books I like to read.
Like my favourite tennis players plying the game the way I like to watch.
Sorry about the tennis overload- there is French Open on TV!
Lucie
I have read The Portrait of Dorian Gray with no previous information of any kind about Oscar Wilde, except he was a Canon writer. I pictured we were in an homossexual environment as soon as the first scene Dorian was introduced by Basil. I don't think it changed any thing in any level the fact the writer is a lavish human being.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Curriers were mail carriers. Back then they were paid very little. Prostitution offered much more money. So they made money but at the cost of being used by older men. Some of them weren't even gay..."I think "couriers." I was making a little joke.
I knew he was gay when I read it, but I didn't care. Arthur Clarke was gay, and seemed to prefer late-teen boys. As a result of that he was portrayed as a pedophile, which he wasn't. Orson Scott Card is against gay marriage and is reviled for that, and I find the charge of homophobia overblown at best. Ender's Game is a pretty good book, and I find the sequels increasingly tedious, but that has nothing to do with Card's views on gay marriage.The work is the work. One would have to be truly reprehensible to have a great work ignored. I'm not aware of any. I am aware, however, of a number of authors being slandered with overstated charges. I tend to ignore that.
Yes, reading is about the books, not the people who wrote them. If I like the book and the opinions it expresses, I do not have to know anything more about the author.
I read this novel after reading Wilde's plays as well as getting some information on the life of the author, so I knew about his lifestyle before I started. I feel like the homoeroticism that a lot of people associate with this novel shows itself regardless of Wilde's sexuality. Basically, I don't really think that knowing about his life influenced my reading too much. To answer your question of a time when knowing about the author DID impact the experience, I would have to say that I couldn't ignore biographical facts thrown into Frankenstein- I think they made the novel great. Mary Shelley had a pretty sad life with a lot of drama- a lot of the characters in the novel are representative of people she knew in her life. That's a case in which I like it. As long as the author does not get too autobiographical (Fitzgerald, I'm looking at you), I don't usually mind real-life influence. i don't usually see it, to be completely honest.
John wrote: "I knew he was gay when I read it, but I didn't care. Arthur Clarke was gay, and seemed to prefer late-teen boys. As a result of that he was portrayed as a pedophile, which he wasn't. Orson Scott Ca..."I thought Orson was reviled because he donated to organizations lobbying against gay marriage or gay rights or......something? I mean, yeah I don't share the guy's views but it's not enough to stop me reading his works. On the other hand supporting someone monetarily knowing where some of that money goes is enough to make me think twice about buying a book from that person. Maybe that's why authors choose to donate to charity (regardless of beliefs) instead? Makes it more palatable to paying consumers.
Stephan wrote: "Books of reference for the discussion:1- The Picture of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde)
2- De Profundis, The Ballad of Reading Gaol and other writings (Oscar Wilde)
Facts before the discussion:
In 1895..."
I'm surprised you never new that Oscar Wilde was gay. Haven't you seen the movie about his life (Wilde) made in the 90s?
Yes he married and had children to initially conceal it but to look at him he looked like what in the UK we refer to as a 'Dandy' back in the Victorian era. And basically 'Dandy'=homosexual back then.
He had a lover called Lord Douglas, with who he used male prostitutes and cross dressers.
His undoing was when Lord Douglas's father, the Marquess of Queensberry caught onto the fact that there was more than friendship between Wilde and his son. Queensberry accused Wilde of being a sodomite and rather than just let it go, Wilde decided to take him to court for libel. That was his downfall.
Queensberry had people follow Wilde's movements and collected evidence that totally nailed him in court for the crime of sodomy.
He became, I would say, the first, British, most notorious homosexual of the 19th century. The media coverage surrounding it was nothing short of hysteria.
But even if you new nothing about him and read The Picture Of Dorian Grey, the homosexual undertones in the novel are very clear. Which to me, maybe not to everyone, would cause me to think, hmmmm...I wonder if Oscar Wilde is homosexual?
If I'd then found out he was homosexual it wouldn't have changed my opinion on the book because I just take the book at face value regardless of the author, except that perhaps I might think the erotic undertones are possibly written from experience.
The next but more outrageous homosexual in England, before it was legalised, was Quentin Crisp who wrote the infamous The Naked Civil Servant.
Somerandom wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "It came out in his court hearings that he was into teens."He lived during the 19th century. Of course he was into teenagers! So was the re..."
I find it interesting that so many posters here are willing to give Wilde a break on his love of teen/boys because of context but none of you would support the child labor practices of his day. We have laws in place today against adult-teen/child sex and exploitative child labor because we realize there's a power differential between the two parties and exploitation/slavery can and frequently does exists in both of these situations. Children(and women)of the day were barely out of the chattel status they had occupied for centuries in several societies and cultures. Let's stop giving Wilde a break and realize there are plenty of geniuses who have poor boundaries and awful moral codes. If he were straight and going after young girls only, of the same age as Wilde and Douglas, people would get their conservative or liberal knickers all up in a mighty twist. Yes, I'm evaluating him by our modern standards: And that's because the standards of the late 1800's leave much to be desired.
Bosie Douglas was actually 21 years old when he first met Oscar Wilde, so even by today's standards, it would not be pedophilia.
Christine wrote: "Bosie Douglas was actually 21 years old when he first met Oscar Wilde, so even by today's standards, it would not be pedophilia."That definitely chimes with what I've read about his sexual exploits. All the male prostitutes he used were over the age of 18 and in the film of his life, 'Wilde', all of his lovers were portrayed as over the age of 18. Nowhere have I ever read that Wilde was linked with pedophilia. Yes there may have been a considerable age gap between himself and his sex partners, but that doesn't make him a pedophile.
Wilde glorified and revelled in the touch of firm, youthful male bodies. And why not?!
Things haven't changed even today. No matter what your age is, if you've got considerable amounts of money combined with celebrity status the young will flock to you and if they don't, it is very easy to buy their company, which is what Wilde did with many of his lovers.
Mary wrote: "Oscar Wilde hired curiers (who made very little money back then) for him and his friends. A lot of them were under-aged. But back then, girls got married when they were 14. Times have changed. We s..."It appears you're right about Wilde using underage male prostitutes.
An old The Guardian article highlights witness statements that were never heard in the trial but have recently been uncovered and showed one of a chambermaid working at the The Savoy hotel, where Wilde frequently stayed, which tells of how she saw many young male 'renters' meet Wilde there. She continues to say that during one of Wilde's prolonged stays she found a 'common boy, rough looking, about 14 years of age' in Wilde's bed, the sheets of which 'were always in a most disgusting state...with traces of Vaseline, soil and semen'. She was instructed that all bed linen should be kept separate and washed apart.
There are many more highly explicit statements of Wilde's sexual activities from other witnesses. Page Boys are mentioned.
These statements have since been auctioned and were expected to sell for £12,000
So the hugely celebrated, great Oscar Wilde was a secret hebepho/ephebo(if the statements regarding Page Boys are to be believed, then possibly pedo?). Leading a total double life.
But what a sad sign of Victorian England being that all Wilde was being tried for was sodomy and not child abuse. The legal system, back then, didn't give a toss about those young boys he violated.
Its worth noting that in August 1885 the age of consent for girls was raised from 13 to 16.
Consensual homosexual activity at any age was illegal.
I notice that a lot of posts say we should swallow Wilde's behaviour because his activity was common place/expected in Victorian society and some of us are judging him by todays standards. Yes, it certainly went on, but expected? I'm not so sure about that. Lets not forget, that Victorian society was severely sexually repressed. Metal devices were made for men to wear to prevent erections! Sex in the Victorian era, unless for procreation within a marriage, was a massive no, no. They all but tried to stamp it out!
The law of consent was raised from 13 to 16 to protect girls, so clearly the Victorians did have a moral duty and recognised the difference between children and mid-teens and so helped to shield them from sexual child predators. So I don't agree that Victorians thought all children/teens were adults in a sexual context, otherwise why bother to change the law of consent? Or even to have a law of consent at all?
This says to me that apart from the obvious, which was that Wilde's sexual activity was homosexual, the fact it was engaged with pubescent teens, under the age of 16, would be deemed highly socially unacceptable in the Victorian era, regardless of the fact that people new it went on.
I think if the ages of Wilde's lover's were highlighted in his trial, he would have been even more chastised by society. It would have been another immoral nail they would have used in the coffin. When it came to sex, be it of age or under age, the Victorians really took issue with it.
But as Wilde's trial was only concerned with proving he was engaging in homosexual activity, the age of his partners wasn't really a major factor in his conviction.
In terms of labour, that was a totally different matter. I've read documents where women of the era have stated that as soon as they were old enough to hold a rag they were made to clean.
I daresay, in general, society did not give a toss about children, women, and a whole bunch of minorities who have since made it their business to obtain some civil rights.
Kithill wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "It came out in his court hearings that he was into teens."He lived during the 19th century. Of course he was into teena..."
I'm not giving him a break, I specifically objected to people labeling him a "boy lover" as that was inaccurate.
Just to be clear. The word pedophile is defined specifically as a person who is sexually attracted to PREPUBESCENT children of both or either sex. The clinical cut off age of pedophilic attractions is 12 (or 13 if the person is rather young looking.)
So the accusations of pedophilia against Wilde are at best rely solely on the non academic (ie slang) usage of the word, which is by the way rejected by those who work in sex crimes themselves. Was he a hebophile or ephebophile? most likely.
I also never once condoned whatever he did. I simply said he was a product of his time. Do you jump up and down at Dante marrying a 12 year old? No. Why? Because that's just what happened in that society.
Do we accept that sort of thing today? Of course not. But they had a completely different world and upbringing than we had. They had all sorts of outdated beliefs that we dismiss today. That doesn't make them necessarily flawed, they just didn't have the access to the information we have today.
Did Oscar abuse kids? Well he used young prostitutes. If you consider a John paying a person for sex to be abusing the person who sold themselves abusive, then fair enough. I think there's more to it than that, societal structure poverty and other factors, so I refuse to slap an inaccurate label of pedophile onto Oscar Wilde. Because whilst I don't agree with all his sexual practices (him being gay is neither here nor there)I'm not about to throw around a word that carries with it a whole shit load of connotations so haphazardly without all the information.
Unlike some people who use the word pedophile so inaccurately they may as well not bother with the word in the first place. (I'm speaking generally here.)
If Oscar Wilde did the things he's accused of in this forum today, he'd be in fucking jail and rightly so. But the accusations are murky at best and he was not a pedophile as people are claiming, even by today's standards.
Dante might have been, or maybe he married a young girl because women died really young back then, I don't know.
Read wrote: "Mary wrote: "Oscar Wilde hired curiers (who made very little money back then) for him and his friends. A lot of them were under-aged. But back then, girls got married when they were 14. Times have ..."He wouldn't be tried for pedophilia today either, just FYI. Abusing minors, certainly, but not pedophilia.
Besides whilst I condemn the actions of Victorian Society, I also realize that they too wouldn't be charged for pedophilia, despite their marriage age being like 13- 16. Because that's not pedophilia. At least not how we understand the term in an academic sense today. Vernacular wise, however, you are correct.
Edgar Allen Poe married his 13 year old cousin! Haha that may raise a few eyebrows today also.
Mary wrote: "I also read that some of those boys were not gay but they were desperately poor so they did what Wilde wanted for the money...."You could come to any major city this very day and you will find the same thing.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
That depends on the author in question. For example, the actions of authors like Cassandra Claire and Stephenie Meyer hurt my opinions on their novels.
As for the awesomely awesome Oscar Wilde, I already knew he was gay. How could you not? He's a gay icon!
I really could not care less about his sexual orientation because it's such a small part of someone's personality. Who the hell cares?
It doesn't detract from his genius and his talent.
Same for the Sistine Chapel masterpiece. Why should Micheal Angelo's homosexuality affect one's appreciation of it?
Hell, the father of Computing Science (Alan Turing) was gay. Is anyone here going to stop using their computer because of it? Doubt it.
I read the Picture of Dorian Gray with this knowledge and I remain unaffected by it. (Although I do admit to my own prejudice towards Wilde, in general.)
It's a book judging and mocking Wilde's pet philosophy of Aestheticism. Not a bloody piece about pro or anti gay sentiments!
It often criticizes Victorian society and it's "morals." But that's found in most if not all of Wilde's work. Nothing new.
2- Can you remain unaffected by such knowledge?
Again, depends on the author in question. As for Wilde, he has and always will be a role model and hero for me. My respect for his accomplishments are not altered by what I know about him.
3- Do you believe that it is fair to judge a story because of facts pertaining the author's life?
Again, this depends. Authors write what they know and often draw upon their own experiences. If a book has unfair bias and prejudices littered throughout, then I would say it would be fair to judge it upon an author's life. That shouldn't however, affect one's opinion on the writing itself. But it may well do.
As for Wilde, his life was awesome! He was a rebel, with a sense of style and flair. (See what I mean? I loves him!!)
4- Can you give an example, either positive or negative, as to how personal details about an author have affected your view/review in regard to a certain book?
Well, whilst my friends were caught up in the grip of the sensation known as "Twilight Fever" my knowledge of Stephenie's Mormonism did affect my view of the series, more specifically the whole Abortion-y "debate" during the series after Bella becomes pregnant. I just felt that Stephenie was trying to shove her religious beliefs down my throat. I have no problem with Mormonism or religious beliefs. But I felt that the "debate" in the book was colored by bias and thus I felt it wasn't handled the best it could have been. But that's just me.
5- Would you consider a review of a book biased when the reader judged it also because of a personal opinion in regard to the author?
Perhaps. Again, it depends. We all have our own bias' and prejudices.
If the review was being totally unfair/too generous to the work (the writing quality, story line, characters, etc) and instead focusing solely on the Author's life, then I would consider the review biased.