Reflection From a LONG Time Ago

In class, many weeks ago, before spring break, the class split up into groups to do different types of critics on The Picture of Dorian Gray. My groups was psychoanalyze the characters in Dorian Gray, along with psychoanalysis of the author, Oscar Wilde. We discovered a whole different way to look at the text. Using Barry's Beginning Theory as a guide, we looked at the quote "Basil Hallward is what I think I am: Lord Henry what the world thinks me: Dorian what I would like to be" Attributing this to Freud, we thought that Lord Henry is the id, that he does anything that he feels good to do and therefore Oscar's id is manifested by the actions of Lord Henry. Lord Henry's way of like and the New Hedonism is extensions of the the id . Next, Dorian is the Ego of Oscar Wilde. He understands the needs of others, trying to satisfy the id, but take experiences and situations into consideration. (Dorian doing trying to appease Lord Henry). Finally, Basil is the Superego of Wilde. He is the moral compass and dictates what is right and wrong in the story by confronting Dorian.

The Lover

This is a reflection on our untraditional class structure and my particular group's work. We looked at the idea of the feminine style of writing and how it changed women's voice in literature. I have never read anything by Maragarite Duras, and I thought that this gave a great introduction to her work! The fragmented way in which she writes gives her the power to have the reader know exactly how she feels in an instance, vividly. For a woman on her deathbed able to conjure up these images and feeling in the reader is truly admirable. While many stories chronologically build up a feeling or instance, Duras is able to catch the reader off guard, which makes the literature much more effective. It gives women a voice for their emotions, but they are legitimate because the emotions are presented so rationally. However, to me, her rationality almost makes her seem crazy, that she exaggerates things. But maybe I just want that to make me feel better about what is happening in the story.

Psycoanalytic Criticism

Okay, here is something that finally makes sense to me! All of the other stuff contradicts itself and, at least to me, is a little confusing. The Freudian complex, I understand, and there is a set procedure to look for things.

The Black Cat Workshop

This tutorial was so much help, and gave me some new insight to the writings of Poe. When I read works, I have a hard time not taking it for face value. But now I know that when things don't look quite right, I should read those passages over again and try to connect them to other things that are "against the grain." With Poe, I just always had assumed that he was a morbid, scary writer, which he is in his own right. However, there is always much more. As in The Black Cat, when I read through it the first time, I recognized some things; the oddities of the narrator's character, lynching of the cat, and a wall that didn't burn down. Through discussion, my group understood the interpretation of the work. That the black cat represented black slaves in an uprising, and all the events in the story give support to it. It was fun to be able to discuss and work through the piece together!

Additionally, I thought this workshop was helpful because I now understand the step-by-step process of creating a thesis. It was a little muddled before.

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Now that I have finished the novel, I am still trying to grasp some things that occurred in the book..
What I don't understand though is why Dorian Gray was so susceptible to everyone else's opinions, especially that of Lord Henry. Lord Henry is obviously a mean, selfish person. He even says so himself with the new Hedonism point of view. Even Dorian says that he would be unable to bear it if his soul looked hideous. But he is so seduced by Lord Henry, and when the picture starts to change, and thus the disintegration of his soul, it doesn't even seem that he even looks to Basil who could "save" him. He totally embraces sin and destruction of his life and others. This just seems like that what he says at the beginning of the story won't add up.

The other things that didn't quite seem right to me was that throughout the novel, Wilde seems to be in agreement with beauty, especially outward beauty and aestheticism, but all of the characters become corrupted or their downfall is because of it. How can he have such descriptive, romantic notions throughout the novel, supporting art, but then says something about people ad that they will do anything for beauty.

Also, about the "all art is useless" quote. Wilde obviously doesn't believe this because he himself was an artist of sorts, depicting pictures through writing. Is he trying to say that art is what is made for true beauty, because people are not expecting anything else from it. With people, if they are beautiful, others expect them to be a good, moral person, such as an angel. Beauty is connected to angels and heaven, while ugliness is connected to demons and hell. This shows the split of Dorian, because since he is beautiful, people forgive him for all of his atrocities. Maybe Wilde is commenting on the flaws of society to be obsessed with beauty. Even today, society reads gossip magazines and worships celebrities.

Deconstruction

Deconstruction is doesn't make much sense to me. The whole idea of having a "decentered" planet is a little hard for me to comprehend. A place where there is not absolute or fixed points, allowing 'free play' doesn't quite sit well with me. In the essay, Death of the Author, moving into the post-structuralism era makes the reader disconnect the author from the work, so that philosophical meanings can be derived from the free text. I do not quite buy that! The point is to not take into any consideration what the author intent on writing was. But don't authors write to convey their ideas and opinions? The whole notion that there is 'nothing outside the text' in some ways is false.

I understand that critics should look not only for the parallels as the structuralists do, but also look for the paradoxes, conflicts, ect. It is important to look at literature from all of the different angles, but I think that they need to be put together.

I once saw a deconstruction of the ballet, Swan Lake. When we bought tickets, we had not realized that it was a deconstruction interpretation. Instead of having a female cast, the entire cast was male, and the story was interpreted dramatically different than the traditional interpretation. I feel though that with this rendition of the ballet, the director did not take into consideration of the intent of the ballet to begin with, and the story was lost. The beauty was lost! Even thought this idea spawned creativity, I did not appreciate the deconstruction of the ballet. Sometimes, looking at something more traditionally in my opinion is better.

Structuralism

Compared, Structuralism as a form of critically reading literature makes more sense to me than some previous examples of Liberal Humanism. Structuralism is an organized, systematic approach to look at a piece of writing. For me, it is much easier to look for patterns and opposites in writing than trying to ignore small parts of the big picture and go straight to the meaning and content of the story. By being able to figure out the interrelated parts of the big picture, it is a more concrete way to look at literature. The structure of the sentences determines the meaning as a whole. The best example for me was the watch example. Depending on what type of watch was chosen, the image of the wearer changed. Also, Structuralism is a belief of systems and that structures are what gives meaning to the story. This seems like an upfront way to look at literature, and coming from a business and science background, I appreciate this ordered and technical way of perspective. I especially relate to the different "codes" presented in Beginning Theory. These five codes, such as proairetic, hermeneutic, cultural, semic, and symbolic, all relate to each other, and all five can be found in most literature.

However, I am still a little skeptical of Structuralism for certain types of writing. This type of critic seems a little rigid for certain types of work, such as writing that is deeply emotional. Some authors may feel that the reason for their writing is the emotion and meaning, as found in Liberal Humanism. It is not found in the structure of their writing.