Thoughts on Dorian Gray

The Picture of Dorian Gray, what a complex novel. It truly embodies the artist as portrayed by Wilde. It is a once a novel that on the surface is ludicrous bordering on comical, with all its epigrams and melodrama. On the other hand it can be read as a “symbol” and wild warns “those who read the symbol do so at their peril.” In fact the preface sums up the themes of the novel in a way. The novel is the “surface “and “symbol” referred to in the preface and the materials used for its emplotment are vice and virtue. Its hard to tell form reading the novel alone whether or not Wilde was intentionally using the unconscious and the conscious theme, and whether that can be placed into dialogue with Freud and Lacan. I would have to look that up, though it would contradict Wilde’s idea of art for art’s sake alone. I get the impression that his art was to be valued and interpreted without his biographical information being involved.

            Another point of interest that I have yet to fully understand is the constant imagery of flowers and plants. One reason is that they create an unreal surrounding, as professor Garret explained that it was not possible for certain flowers to bloom in the same season.  The symbolism behind them is interesting; I would like to study it more closely, like why does he refer to herbaceous plants in some scenes and aromatic ones in others? Is there a Romantic aspect to the Garden, when it seems to restore his humanity after Sibyl’s death? Does that romantic contrast exist in the novel between the garden and the city as a corruptor? The other thing I wonder about is Basil’s name and the possible symbolism there, not to mention Sibyl. Moreover was Wilde intending to make these associations and does it matter? That is the beauty of Wilde’s writing, he is very much Lord Henry sparking our curiosity and stepping back to let figure out whatever meanings we wish to find in his art. Curiosity it a major driving force for Dorian Gray, the curiosity of life and the fear of realism. Always wanting to live vicariously but never truly. It is escapism at its best. The real is subverted and made unreal through romanticism and the unreal is relished as reality.

            I couldn’t help but think of the Flanneur and the Man of the Crowd while reading this novel. After being introduced to Harry Dorian seems to thrive on the crowd. He seeks it out more and more and his expression becomes more and more like that of the man of the crowd. Even the mirror like quality of the portrait is like the man looking through the glass or at himself. The other part about this intertextuality is that Dorian is an observer; he looks and extracts information but does not wish to reciprocate that exchange of information. He conceals the portrait at all costs. He is also more obviously the Flanneur then any other character in any other novel we have read this quarter. His gaze is another thing that must be studied in more depth, because he has two if we include the changing gaze of the portrait.

Let's Get it Together, Ladies

Reading Walkowitz’s essay “City of Dreadful Delight,” which paired quite nicely with last week’s Wilson reading, brought to mind the Lacanian theory of the “other” and its connection to the eroticizing of low culture. Walkowitz quotes critics Stallybrass and White, who offer a culturally symbolic explanation for the “low-other” fetish:

“The top attempts to reject and eliminate the bottom for reasons of prestige and status, only to discover not only that it is in some way frequently dependent on the low-other, but also that the top includes that low symbolically as a primary eroticized constituent of its own fantasy life. The result is a mobile, conflictual fusion of power, fear and desire in the construction of subjectivity.”

This image of subject, feared and desired, is so relevant, as it applies to any sort of prejudice that we as observers connect to the unfamiliar. In more conspicuous instances, the thought of race and race relations applies. America has had a history (and some may argue that is still exists today) of eroticizing the non-white subject, particularly women of African, Asian, or Hispanic descent, and fetishizing them only for their physical unfamiliarity. They not only pose a potential political threat, but they also become symbols of sexualized idolatry. Walkowitz applies this theory to the Victorian prostitute, noting the binary between “domesticated feminine virtue” and the “public symbol of female vice,” a culturally reinforced separation.

The fact that bourgeois men and women became so invested in the investigation of prostitution implies its fetish, the feverish need to know and consume the subjects in question. Certainly this implication also highlights the Victorian habit of sexual repression, and it seems to subjugate all working women as degenerate, lowly others, threats to moral society. Of course, with fluctuations and fragmentations of the “readable” city comes the changing of idealized thinking (a throwback to Wilson’s “Invisible Flaneur”), and multitudes of marginalized personalities begin to inhabit the space between the morally good and despicably bad. Despite the changing politics though, women still get the short end of the stick.

Female identity remains a generalized idea. Even though we’ve moved centuries away from being compared to societal plagues, that underlying notion of subjectivity continues to permeate cultural thinking. It’s a shame too, because it even exists within female circles – we shame each other for sexual expression, body image, etc., yet we simultaneously disapprove of those going against idealistic forms of female beauty and self-expression. This is a huge roadblock for society in general. I ask, why have we moved forward in so many ways for equal rights, when we continue to adhere to archaic forms of Lacanian thinking? Can we ever get over ourselves, girls?

Bleak House and Wilson's invisible Flâneur

Women being “ensconced in the domestic sphere”(90) are a pretty large theme in Bleak House. The most obvious example is the binary representation of Esther and Lady Deadlock. Esther from the moment we are introduced to her is in the domestic sphere. She may change homes several times, but she is seen only travelling into homes, unless a man accompanies her. Her movements are quite limited to the home. She is portrayed as the Angel of the house, despite not having a loving mother figure in her life, Esther knows what to do when Jenny’s baby dies, she mothers Ada and runs Bleak House noting everyone’s preferences and catering to them behind the scenes.  Lady Dedlock on the other hand is never content with her domestic life and is constantly traveling outside her sphere. In our first introduction to her she expresses her dissatisfaction through boredom, she is then on route to Paris. What is interesting is that the reader finds this out through the housekeeper who is reporting her absence to Mr. Guppy. Absence from the home thereafter defines her role. The next times we hear of Lady Dedlock she is on the rode travelling home but halts the carriage to walk hurriedly away form her husband. She is later seen taking shelter form a storm not at Chesney Wold her home but out in a lodge within the woods. But even her movements within the city are limited, she cannot move about the city without Tom’s guidance. She may have arrived there alone but she was certainly not able to navigate the city without his presence. Even in her final scene, she flees to the tomb of her dead lover and in some odd way is there under a male presence as well. Lady Dedlock’s tale is the story of a woman who succumbed to the immoral and sensual excesses of the city. She birthed an illegitimate child outside of wedlock. Her story is the depiction of the “breakdown of family life”(91).  The only way she was able to preserve her virtue and respectability was by marrying Sir Leicester. It was only by being under the protection of his name and becoming his, was she able to escape her past. The man in this way was able to redeem her but it is interesting that the male presence is largely silent throughout the novel; at most he observes but remains passive.

            The two strongest personalities within the novel are Esther and Honoria’s, decisive and proactive characters. The men in the novel seem like weak figures like the man child, Mr. Skimpole, Tom an actual child, Jenny’s alcoholic husband, Richard the youth with no direction in life, Nemo the opium addict and the various other male figures that seem to quail beneath the power of the more assertive women in the story. Here is where we can apply the idea of the Flâneur as a male observer, with no occupation or sense of duty. Richard, Skimpole and Jenny’s husbands are the obvious examples of wastrels if not quite dandies. However there are men who perform acts but even those remain passive and silent. Mr. Jarndyce for so many years provided for Esther anonymously, he is portrayed as a nice man who by refusing to be thanked also refuses to acknowledge his actions and so though we know he did something we do not know exactly what. Esther’s movements are well documented as are Lady Dedlock’s. He like Sir Leicester  with Honoria offers to protect Esther through marriage, though this is not made explicit in the book. In my opinion he offered marriage after it is revealed that she is illegitimate. This revelation had she remained unmarried would have ruined her respectability and reputation. By becoming a Mrs. Jarndyce she would have been redeemed and saved from disgrace. The transaction from one engagement to another with Mr. Woodcourt is made possible by the fact that she needs to marry for society to accept her in a respectable manner. It is at this point in the story that Esther is in danger of becoming a fallen angel, so to speak. So we have three men performing silent acts of chivalry. They are passive attempts at protection. They can only watch silently and act quietly. Mr. Tulkinghorn is the most passive aggressive male in the novel. He subjects lady Dedlock to his gaze and in some tacit way exerts power over her by revealing that he will for the moment keep silent about her secret. He is a repository of secrets, action waiting to happen; yet that action is repressed and is killed by a woman. He is silenced forever. Despite being portrayed as the weaker gender the female’s characters have the strongest personalities while the men are portrayed as incompetent babies from the courts of chancery to the homes of poor. With this in mind it is amazing to have to acknowledge that society was male centric and patriarchal.

Thoughts on Bleak House

It seems to me that Bleak House was composed in a black and white sort of way. The contrast between Chesney Wold and Bleak House could not have been more obvious. The former always seemed shadowed in fog or rain, dark, depressing, borring and haunted. The latter seemed sunny, warm, nurturing and lively. Even the contrast between Lady Deadlock and Esther was similar, they were in effect the same person, but while one was cold, dead and bored the other was youthful, lively and happy. Even the two styles of narration differed in this darkness and light sort of way. Esther’s narration seemed tolerate the sunnier familial aspects of the story. She recounted the family dynamic at Bleak House, Ada and Richards budding romance and translated for us Mr. Janrdyce’s moods. The other narrator seemed to know only the mysterious aspects of the story involving the suit, the secret, and the murder. This was a continuous trend to the end of the novel were the a new Bleak House is created and a whole new generation kids is born to mirror the last.

            There were other similarities between characters that seemed to parallel each other. Mr. Boythorn and Sir Liecester loved women, who besides being sisters, did not love them back. I even found that Esther in some ways resembled Mrs. Flite, at least early on in the novel, that theory fell apart as the novel progressed; however they both had a bird and were linked to the Chancery suits. Mrs. Padriggle and Mrs. Jellybee were preoccupied with doing good for others while wronging their own families. I wondered if this particular observation that any link to the fact that England was more concerned with foreign affair and dealing with domestic issues. This also brings Skimpole to mind, he is the man-child that should have been a father figure. The scene early in the novel when Esther and Richard bail him out suggests that he is stealing or taking advantage of children. This is driven home each time he appears borrowing money or living off of other people generosity. In the end he proves to be and ungrateful leech that mooches off of Richard and slanders Mr. Janrdyce in his book. The point being that in England children were working and being exploited by masters who should have been father figures protecting them from the world.

            This brings me to the next point about the angel in house. Esther is very much the Angel in the house. She is a mother figure to Ada, protecting her and sheltering her while keeping house for Mr. Janrdyce and Richard. They leave and face the world and all of its foggy mystery while she cares for the poor and informs us ever so demurely of her modesty. Lady Deadlock on the other hand poses the direct contrast of this. She embodies the fallen Angel, the woman who strayed and is haunted by a ghostly specter for her less then moral past. Richard too embodies the man who went to adventure and see the world but failed in his duty to provide and protect this family. Woodcourt on the other hand goes abroad, rescues people, is heroic and comes home to do his duty by other and provide for and protect his family with Esther.

Self Governance

From what I gather the idea behind the Panopticism is surveillance as a safety measure or as a means of learning human behavior. The various examples that were given ranged from the plague to a king’s menagerie. The former order counters disease and separates the unclean from the pure. The Latter uses architecture as a means of observation; both establish a tacit sense of power over the observed and isolated individuals. The point is made that there are various institutions like school that in some way exercise this ability to govern the people in an unspoken way. The idea is to exercise authority and power by enabling an inmate or whoever is within the rooms of the Panopticon to govern themselves. It is a psychological dominance. The people will self-govern because they know they are being watched but not when. They will therefore always be on good behavior. This is why the Panopticism claims to be so effective, if people self govern then very little policing is needed. One does not need to be in a panoptic building to self govern just knowing that there are surveillance cameras influences most people to be on their best behavior. The idea behind cameras is also for safety. In a parking lot people feel secure because they know there are cameras watching, unfortunately one doesn’t know when or if those cameras are on. By the same token surveillance cameras in a store make a thief think twice before stealing anything because they just don’t know if the cameras are being watched or not. This gives new meaning to the phrase “knowledge is power.”     

            Surveillance provides knowledge of human behaviors that can be incriminating or embarrassing. There are many examples of this in our current government and in our current societies. The surveyor contrary to Foucault’s claim by exercising his power becomes a despot and tyrant over the surveyed person. There is no need for a prince because the surveyor has taken his place but unlike a prince he has psychologically gained control over the individual. If the individual changes his behavior out of fear of the surveyor he has been dominated. It is kind of scary to think that this is how our society works in a lot of ways. We do self govern or police each other. It is easy to dissociate from the Panopticon because we think that only inmates at a penitentiary are subject to the gaze of whoever is in the central tower. There may not be a tower at every corner but there are cameras, and there is the possibility that our phones are being tapped and our Internet activity is being logged. Surveillance as a protective measure is not a foreign concept in our time but all too present. This is not a foreign concept in bleak house either, as everyone is watching everyone. This brings to mind the book 1984 and “big brother is watching” not unlike the image of Uncle Sam. 

Similarities Between Bleak House and The Man of the Crowd

Poe begins his narrative by introducing us to a variety of city dwellers from the upper class gentry to town drunks. He is the detective like observer taking note of every detail of a person’s attire, expression and character. Structurally Bleak house functions in the same way. As the cast is introduced we are taken into the High Court at Chancery where we are once more introduced to the business men and clerks old and young, gentlemen and pick pockets as described by Poe. As we get a closer look at the cast of characters we can see that Mr. Skimpole is the pickpocket in form of the “dandy” and Mr. Boythorn might just be the “sharper” in the form of the military man, if we go by his booming voice. We even see the “drunk” at Mrs. Jellybee’s house in the form of the cook. But why do both authors take so much care in describing these classes with so much unflattering detail? Is it to highlight their poverty, their desperation or their shrewd and false criminality? In Poe’s introduction of people he observes them with skepticism by describing them as “professional beggars” who scowl at those in need of charity. He describes the young clerks as “facsimiles of the gentry”, everywhere he looks there is a copy or imitation of the upper classes. He even expresses disbelief in that gentlemen actually confuse these people as one of their own sometimes. Dicken’s does the same in his narrative by making people pleasant to the cast of characters but with the underlying disquietude of incertitude about the given character. Our most obvious examples are Mr. Skimpole, whose name alone suggests that he “skimps” out on his children and mooches off of his friends. There is always the underlying current of suspicion held by the reader when introduced to new characters. Mrs. Jellybee for all her proclamations of doing good in Africa does not succeed in convincing the reader of this “truth.” Another similar character is Mrs. Padriggle. I do not have the answer to the question of  why these characters are represented in this light, but it seems to me that the narrators report from a privileged point of view. Poe’s narrator is an outsider, casting judgments and in someway Dickens’ two narrators do so as well. Are the authors projecting the views of the upper classes on those who dare to dream of rising above their stations one day. Is it to express the disgust that one will feel at entering into the lives of the poor in order to create an awareness of their situation?

            Another point of interest to me was the narrator in both stories. Poe’s voyeuristic narrator seemed in some ways to be the “Man of the Crowd” himself. The entire narrative the narrator functions as a shadow to this mysterious man, able to be in tune with his body language and facial expression from behind. Their illnesses are almost the same, unknown but drive them to move about the city. It is almost as if the man is narrating for the audience from an out of body experience if one looks a from a psychoanalytic point of view. It is eerie. The same can be said about the alternation of narrator in Bleak House, like a split personality coming to life at night while the real person sleeps. The third person narrator disappears when Esther enters the scene but reappears when Esther is gone to bed and vanishes once more when she awakens to resume her narrative. Once again why have the authors chosen to tell their stories in this bizarre manner?