Category: Uncategorized

When I started reading Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime, I thought that this short story would be mainly focused on the theme of sorrow caused by the inevitability of murder and the supernatural loss of free will (Especially after this line on page 173: “he had become conscious of the terrible mystery of Destiny, of the awful meaning of Doom”). However, I found this story to be much more comedic than I previously had expected. Arthur’s strange sense of duty to the laws of chiromancy and his repeated attempts at murder were so ridiculous that I wholeheartedly agreed with Lady Windermere’s last exclamation (a response to Arthur’s assertion that chiromancy had given him Sybil’s love) that she had “never heard such nonsense in all [her] life” (192).

Much of the comedy seemed to come from the very character of Arthur. Wilde describes him as a man with “common sense;” however, Arthur’s actions seem to prove otherwise. I was shocked when he immediately accepted Mr. Podgers’ prediction that he would eventually kill a distant relative. This fortune teller did coincidently make eerily correct physic readings about some of the guests, but their validity could have easily come from doing prior background research about every person in attendance – rather than from an otherworldly source. In fact, Windermere even alludes to this possibility by calling Podgers “a dreadful imposter” later in the story (192). I would have expected Arthur to at least harbor a few doubts about the supposed inevitability of the murder (especially if he was rational with “common sense”); however, “life to him meant action, rather than thought,” and he impulsively decides to kill one of his relatives, so that he will not have to do this while married (178). Furthermore, when Arthur actually does think, he seems delusional as he even hilariously considers his plan of murder to be “his self-sacrifice,” which is ironic because he is not the one that will be dying. The above factors can be summarized as Arthur’s refusal to critically think about his situation, and this failure leads to many foolish and hastily planned murder attempts, which definitely heighten the comedy.

What struck me the most about both “The Canterville Ghost” and “Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime” was how subversive they were to two popular genres of stories, those being ghost stories and murder mysteries respectively. 

“Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime” very clearly mocks Victorian society, a culture in which everybody does what they feel they are supposed to do, instead of what they might want to do. This is reflected most in the titular character, who feels that, because a fortune teller foretells murder in his future, he must go about killing someone close to him, just to get the inevitable murder out of the way. Arthur never considers simply not murdering anybody, but instead allows others to command his actions for him. Through attempting to conform to external pressures, he ends up performing several vile acts, culminating in throwing a man off a bridge, killing him. Arthur feels no regret after this, immediately marries his fiancé, and lives happily ever after. I believe the story is also a commentary on how the upper class get away with everything, as Arthur attempted two murders and succeeded with a third and faced zero legal repercussions. 

“The Canterville Ghost” is quite clearly a satire on common ghost stories at the time, as the titular specter is far from an intimidating villain, but rather a bumbling fool. It seems significant that the ghost is haunting a house in England that is lived in by a family of Americans, and that said Americans are immune from his attempts to frighten them. To me, the ghost is a reflection, somewhat of Victorian values, as he feels it is his duty to spook and frighten the residents of the house, almost as if he is honor bound to do so. As Americans have different values, they are completely unfazed by the ghost, but instead attempt to rationally deal with the small amount of trouble he causes their family. I found it interesting that the daughter of the family, named Virginia in reference to both the state in which Europeans first journeyed to America and the Virgin Mary, served as the savior of the ghost, allowing him to abandon his duty and finally rest, after becoming one with nature. This seems to be symbolic of Wilde’s desire for all people to give up the stuffy customs of the day, and start living life at one with the world, and with oneself. 

Much like Professor Kinyon told us in class, I myself am not a poetry lover either. I find poems to be outside the realm of my literary understanding and completely boring by the time I figure out what the poet is trying to say. That is not to say I do not enjoy the occasional poem, but honestly, poetry is not the medium for Oscar Wilde. While reading the selections we were assigned, I couldn’t help but notice the difference between Wilde’s blank verse poems in prose and his more structured poetry. It felt as if he were trying to conform himself to the box of poetry and lost his artistic flair in the process. Wilde is a particularly verbose writer, and when he tries to fit his ideas into rhymed stanzas it does not impress to the same effect that his other writing does. 

Even though Wilde’s poetic skills are questionable, his poems in prose were more indicative of his true brilliance. This first one that piqued my interest was the poem Doer of Good. Wilde wrote it from the point of view of a savior, God, to criticize those who abuse the gifts bestowed upon them. This cautionary tale serves to reveal to the reader that being given gifts from God is not being given the license to then live however you want. In a similar way to the age old quote that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” these people reveal the seductive nature of the material world. Before, they were lost. After being saved, they realize how much easier it is to live the “pleasant way” rather than a spiritual life of material hardship (901).  I believe Wilde wrote this tale to reflect the decadent movement. Even though he himself was a prominent decadent figure, Wilde was extremely interested in the Catholic faith. Because of this, Wilde writes his poems in prose as a collection of work warning his readers of the damnation that awaits those engulfed in the life of society and climbing the social ladder. Not only does it make you feel good to have more power and things, but it makes life considerably easier. Wilde acknowledges this fact throughout his writings that we have read so far, but they always have the underlying message that the truly beautiful things in life do not come from society or even money, but from compassion for one another and an ardent desire to create something that impresses upon its audience. 

When Wilde is not restricted by the structure of a specific style, his writing depth increases exponentially. These poems in prose were some of my favorite poems to ever read. As I have seen multiple times in the short time we have been in class, Wilde does not do well to try to conform himself to a box. His ideas are too elaborate to condense into a few words, which is obvious when you take a look at his complete works. Wielding words is a challenge in itself, and not everyone excels at the same medium. So this is me, criticizing the artist that told us himself how not everyone has a gift to create in some forms.

While reading Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime, I was struck by how the story seemed to be almost void of morality as we traditionally understand it. I do not mean that there is no right or wrong in the story, but that audience expectations are not met. In my experience, people come to expect stories like Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart.” When the main character does something wrong, he gets his comeuppance, even if it is at his own hands. However, in Wilde’s story, Lord Arthur Savile never even acknowledges that he did anything wrong.

I think it is fair to state that murder is wrong without needing to explain why, and I would argue that most people would agree with me. The average person reading Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime would see Savile’s actions as morally reprehensible. Yet, he still gets his “happily ever after” and does not so much as acknowledge that what he did was wrong. The narrator is explicit: “never for one moment did Lord Arthur regret all that he had suffered” (182). Not only does Lord Arthur not show guilt for his actions, but he sees them in the lens of his own suffering. Throughout the story, Lord Arthur treats murder as a task he must complete in order to live the life he wants, not as a moral question. That is an uncomfortable reality for the reader to face, especially because Lord Arthur clearly shows no remorse.

The story does not seem to want the reader to look deeply into questions of right and wrong, yet I could not stop myself. Wilde seems content to represent a world in which people can do awful things with no punishment while innocent men–like the chiromantist–suffer for no reason. Arguably, that world is as akin to our own as the one of moral judgment that I choose to read into the story, even though it is difficult to accept. It is a concept for which I do not actually have an answer, and it paints a picture of an almost arbitrary world in which morality comes second to people’s desires–or doesn’t come up at all. I’ll be interested to see whether this notion is reflected in Wilde’s other work, particularly in The Picture of Dorian Gray.

With a stylistic approach to the interpretation of Oscar Wilde’s works, it’s possible to see the true talent, as well as cynicism, of his character. The poems are very well written, although I wouldn’t rank them as equal in terms of quality with his novels or plays just because if anything, his works are very highly set bars in terms of writing. However, the cynicism and the dark, somewhat depressing tone and image of his poems are apparent. Hélas reads, “Is that time dead? Lo! With a little rod I did but touch the honey of romance – And must I lose a soul’s inheritance?” Fitting with the definition of Hélas (grief), the writing also conveys this dark mood throughout. And much of the darkness is an aid to just how beautifully crafted the language of his poetry is. For example, “We loitered down the moonlit street,” and “Sometimes a clockwork puppet pressed A phantom lover to her breast,” all resonate deeply and sonically. The quality of Wilde’s writing stays immaculate, even when he tries his hand at various forms of literature and art.

I was decently surprised by the form Wilde took on with his poetry; while I expected a more free flowing narrative style, I was surprised by how sternly he kept to a specific rhyme and his specific form. More than an artistic approach to poetry that relies on the reader’s perceptiveness/perception of the senses and a capacity to create portrayals of the imagery the author utilizes, Wilde kept close to a structure that seemed, in a way, old fashioned and authentic. In The Harlot’s House, he keeps true to a specific rhyme scheme throughout, and consistently comes back to this form. My expectations were somewhat upended mainly because I believed his approach to poetry would be a lot more free form and image heavy.

Last week in class, I enjoyed discussing Wilde’s Phrases and Philosophies For the Use of the Young. I had initially enjoyed reading it, but, if I am being totally honest, did not sit with what he wrote in that section for a long time. I read, was often amused, and moved on. For that reason, I felt particularly engaged by this part of our discussion last Wednesday. 

In particular, we emphasized the fact that many of Wilde’s phrases seem to contradict each other. For example, in the first phrase, he writes that there is no wickedness, but, later, he discusses the presence of sin. On its face, these two statements cannot exist together. Sin is wicked, so if there is no wickedness, there is no value in sin. We spent a lot of time breaking this concept down, and ultimately came to the conclusion that when Wilde discusses sin, it is not in a religious or moral context. His entire focus is on art and how to make art beautiful, so it would be “sinful” to treat art as anything less than beautiful. If one approaches the Phrases and Philosophies from that point of view, they are not contradictory because they are all devoted to art for art’s sake.

I have found myself challenged by Wilde in these last few weeks. At the same time as I started reading The Critic As Artist for class, I was reading The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis because a friend recommended it to me. The Screwtape Letters resonated with me and has impacted my outlook on life, and Lewis has a drastically different perspective from Wilde. To Lewis, everything is moral. He sees God in every part of life, so everything we do must be with God’s will in mind. For Lewis, there is no “art for art’s sake.” On a gut level, I agree more with Lewis than I do with Wilde. I believe that all art is a response to the artist’s world, even if that is not the artist’s intention, which makes art for art alone feel like an impossible goal. For that reason, I have had a hard time reading Wilde and trying not to look for deeper meanings, but to read his work as he thought it should be read. Our discussion on the Phrases and Philosophies will serve as a good reminder of where Wilde’s “morality” comes from in art, even as I continue to be challenged by my insistence on reading through my own morality.