Oscar Wilde sure seems to be one who holds this "privileged
gaze" upon humanity. We’ve been discussing the city in the 19th
century this quarter, and after studying Mayhew’s version of the
London Labour’s decrepit poor, now we have a new type of 19th century
Londoner; the flaneur. Yet, this character,
with its rich associations: the man of leisure, the idler, the
urban explorer, the solitary prostitute, is not just the connoisseur of the street; this
flaneur is a nocturnal wanderer in pursuit of entertainment. Judith Walkowitz’ City of Dreadful Delight’s opening chapter “Urban Spectatorship”
explains that it is “the flaneur’s propensity for fantasy” and a “bourgeois
male pleasure” whom has a “privileged gaze” and whose exploration and discovery
of one’s city can help him obtain the advantage of what Griselda Pollock
defines as truly “being at home in the city” (16). Walkowitz describes the progress of this new
urban traveler from the traditional urban spectatorship of the “sympathetic
resident” who can take up night walking, (noticeably a male pursuit
immortalized in urban accounts since Elizabethan times).
So, now we learn that the poor hovels of
London in the East End become a place of entertainment for the bored
aristocracy, how enchanting. The “streets of London became a playground for the
upper classes” where the street's sights and characters are" passing shows.” Is this like visiting the animals in a zoo? This is where
the connection between Wilde’s classic The Portrait of Dorian Gray and the city landscape really began to
connect for me. Dorian goes down to the dumpy London theater to “watch” a
second rate actress perform, and Sybil Vane becomes the character in one of his many passing
shows.
Except, Walkowitz
begins using terms such as moral and biological degeneration in the latter part of her chapter to define the
poor. People of poverty (or the characters in the streets who create the stage
shows), who were able to change the bourgeois’ boring reality into an evening bit of fantasy,
are now the purveyors of immoral attitudes that ultimately change the
biological nature of humanity. Really? Well, yes. Walkowitz declares London to be a
place “where values and perception seem
in constant flux” and Wilde shows us that when
Dorian enters into these East End opium dens, (where he ultimately learns his horrid immoral behavior as he quite frequently begins sauntering into these decrepit hovels), we watch how one can easily transfer from an “illegible” city at night back into an “ordered and knowable” city
before dawn. This fluctuating between reality and fantasy become a construct only a knife can put order to.
Yet, my
argument would differ. I believe that I can prove that the beauty of Dorian (aka.
the West End) is a façade. Just like when Walkowitz explains that “the public landscape
of the privileged urban flaneur of the period had become an unstable construct
threatened internally by contradictions and tensions and constantly challenged
from without by social forces that pressed these dominant representations to be
reworked, shorn up, reconstructed (17)” I would suggest that Wilde created a
satire to explain the obscene vanity of the bourgeois; as long as they kept up
“appearances” they did not have to follow any moral code, and these nocturnal
wanderings were part of this unstable construct of ethics of the hypocritical
rich; a group of West Enders who ridicule the poor as dirty, but enjoy the
entertainment provided to them.
And another
way I will prove this (as I believe I am passionate enough about this idea to
write my second paper on it) is by taking all the descriptions that Wilde uses
to describe the portrait as it changes, and the immoral actions of Dorian and
compare the diction to the descriptions that historians use to define the East
End. Once Dorian’s soul is defined to be a symbol of the East End, I will then
show how the hypocrisy of the bourgeois façade makes Wilde’s novel a satire of
his own West End social class.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.