The Picture of Dorian Gray was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
novels,
novellas,
novelettes and
short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Victorian era#Culture|Victorian culture]] The anchor (#Culture) has been
deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
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.
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.
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,
Moreschi13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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?
MoreschiDeletion!20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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. (
Eeesh04:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC))reply
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).reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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.
Awadewit02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. (
Eeesh05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC))reply
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. (
Eeesh05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC))reply
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)reply
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.
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. --
UsaSatsui15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
JayHenry18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. --
JayHenry03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Pocky0904:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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."
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)reply
"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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)
by quoting Prince HamletHamlet, a privileged character whoin which the eponymous character
Dorian is not quoting Hamlet the character, but rather Claudius (speaking to Laertes)[1]
impels his potential suitor (
Ophelia) to madness and possibly suicide
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.[2] Gertrude, for example, describes it as accidental (later in the same scene, 4.7).[1]
[Hamlet] impels Ophelia to suicide, and prompts her brother (Laertes) to swear mortal revenge.
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.