Talk:The Picture of Dorian Gray

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ericamkan. Peer reviewers: Zarroyo1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is good

I have passed this article for good article status. Congratulations to everyone who's worked on it. I remember seeing this a few months back and it was a complete mess, so clearly a lot has been done in a short space of time. Bravo!

Now, assuming the aim is to get this through to FA status, a lot more needs to be done.

• Some of the prose is less than ideal. Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is helpful, as are the exercises with it.
• Peer review, peer review, peer review. Essential for correcting the article's mistakes.
• See WP:WIAFA, and the links at the bottom.
• More specifically, the first paragraph of the "Plot summary" is too floridly phrased. The rest of the prose is fine for GA, but that one paragraph is just a little too unencyclopedic. Rephrase.
• The whole "Aestheticism" bit in the "Themes" needs to be expanded. The phrase "fin de siecle" (with the accents) must be included, preferably several times.
• There was some positive reception to the book at the time. Louis Stevenson thought it was first-rate. That should be included.
• Some more on modern criticism is essential.
• All the popular culture + film references are fine now, but I really don't think that any more are necessary.
• The two paragraphs following the heading "Literary significance" don't seem to me to have much to do with literary significance. They need to go somewhere else and filled in for.

I plan on staying around to help, so if any more nasties come to mind I'll point them out. Once again, congrats on all the hard work so far. It's got me interested, and I would love to see it get to FA. Good luck! Best, Moreschi 13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Looking back, is the whole anti-semitism thing really so important as to merit a whole subsection of its own? Mr Isaacs is most certainly a minor character in the book and any anti-Semitism involved is very minor. It's not like the Dickens, where the major villain is Jewish. I'd be surprised if most of the criticism of the book makes such a big deal of any anti-semitism as this article does. Undue weight? Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think too much attention is paid to it. Also, it should be said that not every character in the book has a negative opinion of Mr Isaacs, Sibyl's mother praises him and Lord Henry is said to take an immediate liking to him. This isn't mentioned in the article and it seems to be implied that only negative opinions are expressed. Is it anti-Semitic to have one character express a dislike of a minor Jewish character? I certainly don't think so, particularly when other characters are given the opposite perspective.

Overall I don't think this section of the article is needed, in fact I found it a little irritating that it was included. As you say, it's all very well to put it in something like Dickens, or the Merchant of Venice where there is a clear question of anti-Semitism, but this whole subsection has arisen from a couple of minor passages which are negated by other parts of the novel. I would advocate deleting it. blankfrackis 14:59 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to delete it since no one's objecting, though it's not poorly written and is supported by sources; however, it does seem to get rather too much weight, especially since many of the points given argue against Wilde's anti-Semitism. In works like the Merchant of Venice and Oliver Twist I can certainly see why this issue should be addressed, but the unfortunate truth is that many classic 19th century novels refer passingly to Jewish characters in a manner that is likely to make us wince a bit today. It especially seems a bit strong to consider "Anti-Semitism" as a "Theme" of the novel, which is what the current arrangement implies. If someone feels that the theater-director is a more prominently discussed character than I am aware of, however, feel free to revert. (Eeesh 04:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Anti-semitism

This article makes provides another poor basis for a legitimate claim: it says, in the Anti-Semitism section:

"These incidents could exist merely to further highlight Dorian's shallow personality, as the descriptions are often concerned with the man's actions, or with what he wears."

That Dorian is shallow is a given, but how is judging a man by his actions shallow? How else ought we to judge a man? By what he doesn't do? The claim, "with what he wears" is perfectly appropriate as a basis for calling Dorian shallow, but "with the man's actions" is not. This needs to be fixed, as I'm sure we can come up with a better basis for calling his Anti-Semitism an example of his shallowness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.255.2 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

The article is very good. But why is there no mention of Wilde's foul anti-Semitism? It is very striking and not mentioning it and trying to put it in some critical perspectuve can appear to the reader as an attempt to minimize or whitewash it. NaySay (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@NaySay It appears that the antisemitism in the book was previously mentioned in the article, but has since been deleted. I agree. A very noticeable absence to not have so much as a single sentence about it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

De-listing GA

I have just delisted this article. For some strange reason, this article appeared on the peer review page, so I thought that the editors wanted a peer review. In the process, I discovered that it was GA and should not be. See my peer review here. It explains the problems I see with this page. Also, you might try to find out why your page suddenly appeared in peer review. I didn't look at the dates of the submission until I was done reviewing. Awadewit 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I listed the article in Peer Review. ---Adasta- 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes me feel better. At least I reviewed a page someone is working on. Oddly, your request is dated 2006. Awadewit 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I must have messed up the process somehow...perhaps I didn't move the second peer review correctly (the last review was the second; this is now the third). ---Adasta- 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) The peer review Awadewit links to above has been moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/The Picture of Dorian Gray/archive1, in case anyone is interested. 84user (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, the archive system confuses me - there's a second page at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Picture of Dorian Gray/archive2, I could not find a third. 84user (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Urashima Taro

Following my consideration of the anti-Semitism part of the article, I'm suggesting that the Urashima Taro section be deleted as well. There appears to be no evidence that this tale influenced Wilde (interesting though the suggestion may be), and on the article for the tale itself, there isn't even any information about when the tale has been told and published in English, so there's no basis for me to judge whether it was even possible that Wilde could have been familiar with it. What makes me especially dubious is the fact that there's an Irish folktale which is quite similar (and involving a person rather than a turtle), which, after all, seems much more likely to have influenced Wilde, if either did; and this tale, though mentioned, bizzarely doesn't get nearly as much attention as Urashima Taro does. My suggestion would be that the Urashima Taro discussion be deleted, and the Irish folktale discussion expanded, with perhaps a reference to the Japanese version at the end as another example of a similar story. (Eeesh 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I do wish I would think out these things in the future before commenting on them, since I invariably grow stronger in my opinions the more I consider them, or regret having entered the conversation entirely. Anyway, I was first struck by the utter impropriety of including the Taro story under "allusions," since their are no allusions to the story in the PDG (under an "Influences" category, perhaps...), and then I remembered Tannhaeuser, which actually is discussed in the novel, and is really by far a much more likely influence on all counts. I'm certain enough that I think I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes myself. (Eeesh 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Duplicate page?

Why is there a separate page on the character of DG, distinct from this page? It makes no sense to me. Shouldn't that one get deleted & anything relevant merged into this? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merge proposal was merge. I have redirected the articles, it is left up to further editor discretion as to how to merge. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone prodded the article Dorian Gray. I think any salvagable information could be merged in here, and then a redirect created. This is way outside of my area of expertise, so I'm proposing the merge. --UsaSatsui 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Support this merge. Literary characters really only ever need their own page if 1) they appear in several works or 2) if the article on the work is so long and the character so central that he needs to be spun-off as a sub-article. Neither is the case here, so merging is a good solution. --JayHenry 18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - I have also tagged the stub Basil Hallward for merging. — TAnthony^Talk 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose this merge for Dorian Gray, Support for Basil Hallward. Using JayHenry's definition #2, I think that the character Dorian is central enough that he needs to be spun-off into a sub-article. The entire character Dorian cannot be analyzed in just one line in the Character section. However, this is only my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooooo (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Support for Basil Hallward.

Oppose for Dorian Gray, per the above from Blooooo. Mr Which 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to both MrWhich and Blooooo, my preference would be to expand the amount of information on Dorian Gray given in this article. I agree the one sentence currently in the article is too little. But if you look at Dorian Gray, you'll see that it's just a plot summary, so that's not really a good outcome either. --JayHenry 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for merge of both because this is a book, a form of art, that is separate form both dorian gray and basil hallward, it does relate to both but it is still not close enough to merge and have as much useful content.Pocky09 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - AleXd (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - Mrmastodon32690 I don't think we need to necessarily cut down on the information presented in this article, just copy and paste it as a character bio section in The Picture of Dorian Grey entry.

Strong support. The current Dorian Gray article is terrible, and the description of the character in this article is equally abysmal. A merge could solve both problems. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Portrait" of Dorian Gray

"The story is often miscalled The Portrait of Dorian Gray." It is? Why is that in the lead paragraph anyway?--Lindsay (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At first blush I don't find this inappropriate; I expect it's so the Cliff Note crowd out there doesn't have to read too unnecessarily far into the article. Mfryc (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be called the portrait throughout the novel. Perhaps there is some scholarly research on this? I'll look into it. Roseclearfield (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether this remark belongs into the lead is indeed doubtful. It is however true: "The Portrait of Dorian Gray" site:wikipedia.org and Google News; e.g. "OSCAR WILDE; His Failure and the Nonsense of Art for Art's Sake" by Cecil Chesterton, The New York Times (9 June 1912) PDF: "The Portrait of Dorian Gray has a nasty smell about it, but it is clever" -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Good research, Mr Bernarek. Since it was uncited, and someone added a further deformation by calling it a "modernisation" I removed it. Would anyone have a secondary source on this mis-appellation? Otherwise we can just allow intelligent readers to deduce the error for themselves. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Searching Google's news archive or books throws up many occurrences (another from the NYT, the book Alterity, Identity, Image by Corbey & Leerssen, p. 64). Whether it's worth mentioning in the article, let alone in its lead, is questionable. Maybe a footnote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was called 'The Portrait of Dorian Gray', and I think there should be some mention of this in the lead.VenomousConcept (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the concept of "least surprise" fairly well demands that the incorrect title show up in the lead. At the moment, the alternate title redirects here, so I've bolded it as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a mistake. I think perhaps it was published as 'The Portrait' in later editions? (I have no evidence of that)I'm just surmising that as I've always heard it called 'The Portrait' it must've been published under that name at some point. If you search for the book, it is published under that name. VenomousConcept (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Irish novel"

The article is categorized in Category:Irish novels. I don't see why. It is set in London, was written in London, and Wilde had lived in England for 16 years when he wrote it. There are no secondary sources discussing the novel's "Irishness". Thus I'll remove the category. Huon (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that by now it's no longer the article, but its eponymous category that's so categorized. The rationale for removing the category still holds. Huon (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. That's Category:Novels by setting, i.e. Category:Novels set in Ireland, you're thinking of. This is an absurd logic. You want to separate the novels from their writers? Gulliver's Travels, Dracula, Netherland, The Blue Lagoon, all written by Irish people but set elsewhere or in other worlds, cannot be Irish either, while Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and The Lord of the Rings cannot be English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.45 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Right now the article doesn't support any claim of "nationality" for the book. Apparently there are some literary critics who see The Picture of Dorian Gray in a decidedly Irish context, but I cannot tell whether that's a mainstream position. If so, we should add something to that effect to the article. Otherwise we should remove the category as inappropriate. Huon (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Amazed to see this point even being discussed - Oscar Wilde is one of the greatest Irish writers, this is his only novel, so of course it's an Irish novel. The fact that he was living overseas when he wrote it is immaterial. If you start down the line of declassifying by the artist's national origin every work of art produced by someone who was living abroad at the time it was produced, you will have many absurd categorisations; James Joyce's works, for example, become French novels. Brocach (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde lived and died as a subject of the United Kingdom. Before 1922 I don't see much point in classifying novels by people from Ireland as "Irish" unless the novels themselves are particularly Irish - as Joyce's work certainly is, and Wilde's certainly isn't. Opera hat (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It was hardly Wilde's fault that Ireland was subject throughout his life to British rule: he was an Irish nationalist and spoke repeatedly on Irish freedom during his 1882 US tour. Wilde was very proud of his mother's agitation for the Irish national cause and referred to Ireland as "my own country". Protesting against the English banning of Salome he proclaimed "I am not English; I'm Irish which is quite another thing."

The implication that Irish writers were British writers until 1922 is just silly. Brocach (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Wilde wasn't Irish, I'm arguing that the book doesn't have a nationality. Aestheticism and decadence, the artistic movements to which this novel belongs, were not particularly Irish, nor is this book an example of a decidedly Irish sub-genre. If you disagree and say it's so obviously Irish, it should be easy to find reliable sources to show that literary critics commonly call the book "Irish". For comparison, Britannica says, "The novel became a classic of English literature." Huon (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"English literature", Huon, conventionally means literature in the English language, not "the literature of the English". English literature written by Irish people is (part of) Irish literature. Novels written in English by Irish novelists are Irish novels. You accept that Oscar Wilde was Irish. To claim that aestheticism and decadence were "not particularly Irish" is to ignore the fact than this Irish writer, Wilde, was the preeminent representative of both tendencies in English literature. Give up on this one: Wilde was Irish so his works were Irish, wherever they were written. Brocach (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Agh, you got in just before me pointing out that "English literature" is "literature in the English language". Opera hat (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Irish" wasn't a legal nationality during Wilde's lifetime. Whether or not his work should be regarded as "Irish" surely comes down to the content of the work itself - and as others have said, there's nothing particularly Irish about Dorian Gray. Opera hat (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, I'll gladly accept that the Britannica's use of "English literature" only refers to the language, but that's no reason to call this novel "Irish". I still haven't seen you present a reliable source to that effect. Huon (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I made no reference to the Britannica, but if you regard that British publication as especially authoritative in these matters you can take its definition as reinforcing all the others that make the same point about the meaning of "English literature". You completely miss the real point here. The category for "Irish novels" contains, exclusively, novels by Irish writers. All that is required for a novel to be classed as an Irish novel is that it be written, as Dorian Gray was, by an Irish writer. There has never been any requirement for categorisation by nationality that a given work of literature confine itself to, or even contain, themes unique to the country of the author's birth. On that bizarre and anti-art scale you would presumably rule out Gulliver's Travels as an Irish novel, since it deals with places such as Brobdignag. Again: just give up on this one, you are not going to remove Wilde from the canon of Irish literature. Brocach (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me guess, you have currently misplaced the reliable source that calls The Picture of Dorian Gray part of the canon of Irish literature? Huon (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Brocach that this issue is larger than just this one novel and have raised it at WP:WikiProject Novels#Category:Novels by country. Huon (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Shouldn't the lede concentrate on the novel rather than the reaction to it? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Frances Richards

I have recently expanded Frances Richards (Canadian artist) (also known as Frances Elswood Richards and Frances Richards Rowley). I have found several references to her portrait of Oscar Wilde and of this portrait being the inspiration for The Picture of Dorian Gray. It seems clear that Richards know Wilde, but the story of her portrait inspiring the novel seems less certain. What is the modern critical view on this? Are there any good sources. Does it merit mention in this article? Verbcatcher (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

Header says that Dorian Gray redirects here, but there is a separate Dorian Gray (character) page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_Gray_(character). Don't know which way we want to go, but we need to straighten it out. Thank you. Pursuedbybaer (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I see there was a discussion above and that there was a recommendation to merge the two. Is that where it stands? Pursuedbybaer (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

According to Wikipedia:No original research, I really don't think we can cite the book for sections like themes and allusions. We need to find good, secondary sources that analyze the book if we want to keep those sections in. Toad02 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fantasy novel category?

Is it really a fantasy novel? There seems to be one symbolic element of "magical realism" in an otherwise non-genre work of literature. The text of the article doesn't use the word "fantasy"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

According to encyclopedia Britannica, it is, meaning that it is considered one by some RSs. See this: https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Picture-of-Dorian-Gray-novel-by-Wilde

Gothic fiction is a genre. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Modern critical response

The lead claims it's a "classic" yet there is only one positive critical response in the modern day recorded in the article. A reoccuring issue in novel articles is the overwhelming selection of negative to positive reviews. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:445B:DE1D:C663:A639 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding a notes section

I added a notes section for clarifying information related to changes I made in the Shakespeare section (specifically re: Hamlet); I had simply used the quote parameter of the cite book template, but it seemed cumbersome in the reference section. I also think because this work was published in significantly different versions and some of the text may apply only to one, it may make sense to have a notes section generally.

Some redundancy in the references section has me thinking it could also be helpful to implement Notes/Citations/References as demonstrated in the shortened footnotes documentation.

Also, I changed the text summarizing Hamlet for a few reasons (the diff markup below sometimes elides irrelevant changes)

1. Dorian speaks of his lifedescribes his portrait
   1. (see note).
2. by quoting Prince HamletHamlet, a privileged character whoin which the eponymous character
   1. Dorian is not quoting Hamlet the character, but rather Claudius (speaking to Laertes)
3. impels his potential suitor (Ophelia) to madness and possibly suicide
   1. Several characters speculate and even assert that Ophelia's death was a suicide, but it remains speculation throughout the rest of the play, in part because Ophelia appeared mad to everyone who saw her just prior. Gertrude, for example, describes it as accidental (later in the same scene, 4.7).
4. [Hamlet] impels Ophelia to suicide, and prompts her brother (Laertes) to swear mortal revenge.
   1. This change might have been unnecessary, but the use of "prompt" over extending "impel" felt like it suggested more direct (and possibly additional) action on Hamlet's part, when it was his murder of their father that precipitated both, and when Claudius (in the very scene quoted) induces Laertes to the revenge that kills Hamlet.

Sources

– spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 07:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LIT 3319 Contexts

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naishakhatani, Jessicareynardz, Umamasuriya (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Naishakhatani (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)