Wilde’s use of Parody in “The Canterville Ghost” and “Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime”

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. 

What are Wilde’s thoughts on predestination?

While reading Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime I struggled to make sense of Wilde’s commentary on predestination in relation to the ideas we already talked about in class, particularly in “The Harlot’s House.” When Lord Arthur hears of his destiny to commit a murder, he thinks, “Could it be that written on his hand, in characters that he could not read himself, but that another could decipher, was some fearful secret of sin… Was there no escape possible? Were we no better than chessmen, moved by an unseen power, vessels the potter fashions at his fancy, for honor or for shame? His reason revolted against it, and yet he felt that some tragedy was hanging over him…” (165). The image of all of mankind moving around the earth as chessmen controlled by some supernatural force reminded me of the mechanical descriptions in “The Harlot’s House.” The dancers are described as “wire-pulled automatons” and “clockwork puppets” (lines 13 and 19). In both passages, Wilde presents the human condition as one that is entirely out of our control.

While this passage in Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime probes our understanding of free will and reason, I could not help but think that the short story as a whole makes fun of the idea of predestination. The plot was predictable, especially in the ways that Lord Arthur tried to rush his fate and complete the crime in order to marry Sybil. I have read quite a few murder mysteries and suspense novels, and poisoning is one of the least effective ways to kill. Also, poisoning is more commonly used by women in literature, and in real life according to The Washington Post. The failed bombing is comical as well. The letter from Jane reveals it to be an “ingenious toy” that “looked so ridiculous, that James and I went off into fits of laughter… when we examined it, we found it was some sort of alarm clock” (179). What does it mean that Wilde portrays predestination so differently between Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime and “The Harlot’s House”? When we discussed predestination last week in the context of the “The Harlot’s House,” one of the main points we made regarded class distinctions, the idea that the poor are unable to resist the force of destiny that pulls them into the harlot’s house, but the rich instead partake because they are bored. Lord Arthur is clearly of the upper class, and he hears of his destiny at Lady Windermere’s extravagant reception. In the last lines of the story, when Sybil, Lady Windermere, and Arthur discuss his belief in chiromancy, Arthur says, “I owe to [chiromancy] all the happiness of my life” (183). Why does the hand of fate provide happiness to the rich and suffering to the poor? Lady Windermere says Arthur’s faith in chiromancy is absolute nonsense, and this perfectly captures Wilde’s views on predestination in both the short story and poem. Given Lord Arthur’s social status, he would have married Sybil and experienced such great “happiness” had simply chosen not to listen to his fortune and murder the chiromantist, yet the same does not apply to the impoverished visitors of the harlot’s house. However, this distinction between the predestination of the poor does not necessarily mean that Wilde is sympathetic to the lower classes. In The Decay of Lying, he discusses the poor as subjects in literature. Vivian says, “Charles Dickens was depressing enough in all conscience when he tried to arouse our sympathy for the victims of the poor-law administration” (1077). Reading the “Harlot’s House” as in conversation with Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime, the effect is an indifference to specific details of father and instead an emphasis on how one behaves as it looms overhead.

Beauty and “Bad” Poetry

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.

Wilde and Cavendish

Reading Wilde’s “The Decay of Lying” reminded me of some of the ideas Margaret Cavendish presents in The Description of a New World, Called the Blazing World.  In The Blazing World, which was published in 1666, Cavendish embarks on a fanciful, philosophical journey through the character of a young lady who becomes the Empress of a new world.  In this world, the Empress uses her unconstrained power over the native inhabitants to uncover truths about the world through a variety of scientific fields.  While doing this, however, Cavendish satirizes the experimental science of her time, critiquing many aspects of the field and proposing what she considers to be a better way to seek truth.  Cavendish’s critique relies on her use of fiction to demonstrate what can be done when reason is combined with fancy.  Using the fictional form of The Blazing World, she presents possibilities in science beyond the constrained work of her time, and relies on character and plot to critique the narrowness of experimental science.

Much later than Cavendish, in 1891, Wilde relies on the form of a dialogue to perform a similar critique of the overuse of fact when understanding society and creating art.  He writes, “Facts are not merely finding a footing-place in history, but they are usurping the domain of Fancy, and have invaded the kingdom of Romance.  Their chilling touch is over everything” (Wilde 980).  His character Vivian argues that there must be a place for fancy and lying in art, or it becomes boring and pointless.  Though Wilde is critiquing art rather than science, both authors use their work to point out the limitations of pure reason and observation, while showing their readers a better way to seek knowledge.  When Cavendish combines reason and observation with fancy in her work of fiction, she is able to ponder what the possible applications of science could be for society, or how technology could be advanced to learn more about the inner workings of creatures and objects rather than just what is visible on the surface.  When Wilde talks about fancy in art, he sees how it changes how one looks at nature and understands different cultures.  They show how fiction and reason are both necessary to find truth, and demonstrate the power of incorporating fancy into reason.

Wilde and Morality

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.

Poetry of Oscar Wilde

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.

Observance and Indulgence

As I entered this class, I knew I had little knowledge of Wilde’s works, but I did carry a smidge of an idea of who he was as a person, or at least the knowledge that he certainly stood out and left his mark in life and death. Now, as I have started to explore his work within the class, I still find myself drawn to getting to know and understand Wilde the man alongside Wilde the artist. He might’ve argued that there is no difference between man (at least some of them) and artist, but I find it interesting to think about Wilde’s personality as he portrayed it, and as it might’ve truly been, if we can properly deduce such things.

One thing that has stood out to me is the conversation we have had about curiosity and wickedness. In the first “Phrase and Philosophy,” Wilde says that “Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others” We discussed in class on the 26th about the ways this phrase contains a bit of a twist and turn despite its brevity. At first, the reader sees that the myth of wickedness was created by “good people,” which has positive connotations for those people. But, the second part of the phrase makes it a sort of jest towards these “good people,” basically saying that they cannot explain their blusteriness when confronted with attractiveness, so they must label it as wicked. We also talked about the use of the word “curious,” which in this phrase we took to mean unknown, mysterious, or strange. The word “others” conveys the feeling of being non-standard, or different. This can all be related to sexuality and queerness with Wilde. Though these “good people” label non-conformity, or queerness, as otherness and wickedness, there is still a sort of attraction to it. Like they can’t help but look even if they don’t condone it. This reminded me of something I read for my American Studies class about conspiracy theories, “Anti-Catholicism has always been the pornography of the Puritan,” meaning that conspiratorial theories by Puritans against Catholics (aka the confessional as a place of seduction, or “libertine priests”) has served as a way to indulge in seductive or wicked thought or observance even though the Puritans are denouncing it. (Hofstadter, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”). And we discussed how Wilde had in part indulged in that observance, in the attention. He shined in his “curiousness.” But, at the same time, we have discussed how Wilde may have been using this presentation as a way to mask himself so he wouldn’t have to answer for non-conformative style, under “L’art pour l’art.” I find this duality fascinating and I look forward to learning more about it as we continue to read Wilde.

Can Anybody Be an Artist?

With our discussions from previous classes and today, a ton of questions started to overwhelm me, with none that I had the answers to. While reading selections from Aesthetes and Decadents as well as Oscar Wilde’s The Critic as an Artist, I began to wonder whether anybody could be an artist. The aesthetes, Symons specifically, constantly mention people such as littérateurs who “are impressionists because it is the Fashion, Symbolists because it is vogue, Decadents because Decadence is in the very air of the cafés” (144). In the modern-day, I feel like this description is synonymous with “pseudo-intellectuals.”

Before this class, I held a view that anybody can be an artist, as long as they consistently practice their craft. Some can be more gifted than others, but art is something that can be open to anyone, accessible and unbarring. The way the aesthetes speak about art almost contrasted this view, and it reminds me a lot of what we were talking about today regarding predestination in “The Harlot’s House.” The Calvinist view of poor people being poor because they were destined to be that way, making them more susceptible to “wicked things,” almost resembles the same argument of the littérateurs that Symons puts forth: art is for art’s sake, but somehow when saying that phrase, the artist and whether they were predestined to be an artist matters.

This line of logic lead me to our conversation in today’s class, where we talked about how Oscar Wilde’s poems in prose flowed better than his poems, as he adhered to the strict parameters and conventions of poetry with the rhyme scheme. He is better suited for the prose format to express himself and impress the reader at a deeper meaning—but what is the reason that we all agree his poems are not his strong suit? What is it about them? Was he, as an artist, simply predestined to be only skillful with prose and plays? I hope this semester that I can keep thinking about style and the aesthetes, and why exactly everyone praises him for his prose and plays rather than his poetry.

“The Critic as Artist”

This week I was interested in our discussion of the connections between sin and wickedness with art, criticism, and attractiveness.  I think art is a way to work through what it is that makes wickedness attractive, because curiosity is a compulsion to learn more, a sense of mystery and the unknown, and art is a way to represent things which seem mysterious to us.  I think poetry in particular is capable of helping us understand elements of things we don’t understand and that we might be slightly afraid of.  I remember back in my Intro to Literary Studies class, it was mentioned that poems are only about three things: love, death, and God, because people struggle to represent these notions linearly.  The unique structure and figurative language utilized by poets can often paint a clearer picture of obscure or convoluted ideas. 

I am looking forward to thinking about Wilde’s poetry and other work with this idea in mind, particularly thinking about the ways art touches the critic rather than being an expression of the artist.  How will Wilde’s work challenge us to think of big picture concepts like love, death, and God?  He already is using religious vocabulary to discuss art and criticism, so I am interested to see how religion plays out in his work.  I am expecting a continued emphasis on curiosity, in particular the “indignant curiosity” that we discussed last week and the connections between what is suspicious and what is attractive.  In what ways is art capable of making wickedness seem attractive?  I am looking forward to reading more of Wilde’s work to see how the arguments in “The Critic as Artist” play out in his actual art.

Phrases and Philosophies

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.