Oscar Wilde - A genius or a hack?

Click here and disable ads!

People are usually torn about this guy. You either love him or hate him, there is no in between. I have to say I fall into the former category, I think Wilde is great, an excellent writer and probably one of the greatest playwrights of all time. Salome and The Importance of Being Earnest both employ a quality of dialog I have yet to see matched anywhere else. The sheer quotability of these two plays is astounding. If you have not read any of his work, I would highly recommend giving him a try. I'm currently reading his notes that he wrote from prison - fascinating stuff. Not only is the writing excellent, but he also touches on many social issues and philosophical questions that he describes from his own unique point of view as he tries to come to terms with his "fall" so to speak.

Perhaps he would say "both".

I love him, and I'm still torn. He was either the first genius to be a meta-hack, or the first hack to present quasi-genius.

Only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. *posh laughter*

Lewis Morris: "It is a conspiracy of silence against me - a conspiracy of silence! What should I do?"
Oscar Wilde: "Join it”

bon-mot ice burn X10000 points


I'm waiting for HHR to barge in the thread.

Well, that was my answer. He was a troll before his time.

That's funny, because reading about his life, the words "lol, troll" pop into my head often. He definitely had an...antagonistic personality.

Yeah... just yeah. He would have been a good Codexian.

Have you ever read "The Importance of Being Earnest"? It's essentially one long troll. Good stuff!

Why is he considered a hack? Or a troll? Care to elaborate on these 2 subjects? I've only ever read The Picture of Dorian Gray, a book I really enjoyed, but other than that, nothing much.

Well, from what very limited material I've read on or from him, he seems to have been equally concerned with taking the piss (and the subsequent reactions of others) as he was writing literature. And with that in mind, most of his literature was social satire, which is again...taking the piss. He was sort of like a trust-fund dandy with nothing better to do than talk shit about himself and everybody around him for a few larfs.

Some qualification of this micro-review would be nice:

1) Salome and The Importance of Being Earnest both employ a quality of dialog I have yet to see matched anywhere else.

Ever ready any Shakespeare? This is a very loose statement that does not convey anything.

2) Not only is the writing excellent,

...

3) from his own unique point of view

A lot of people believe they are Napoleon, you know?

Well, I enjoy Shakespeare, but not because of the quality of writing. Shakespearean-era English is so vastly different from that of our time that judging the writing style would be useless, or worse, exceedingly pretentious and wrong. Obviously he was probably pretty good. But like I said, it's too different to judge it from the lens of the 21st century, or to enjoy the writing in and of itself on that same note. Shakespeare's plays are like the archetype upon which storytelling is based, the tales themselves are treasures, but as far as the writing is concerned, I can't say that I like or dislike it. I like the story that the words are telling, as for the words themselves, I do not pretend to find in them any particular grace or wit.

Wilde on the other hand was a late Victorian era writer, and thus his language is not so different from ours. As a result, I am able to assess his writing in and of itself and it is indisputably great in my eyes. Both of the plays I have mentioned I was not able to put down until I finished reading them. I'm going to give Dorian Gray a shot in a few days, and see how that is like. Hopefully it is of the same quality.

On the third point, yes, everyone has a unique point of view. Some more interesting than others. A Victorian-era writer who has tragically been imprisoned for being a "sodomite" and had his brilliant career cut short is a more interesting perspective than some random jackoff walking on the street.

And before you try to crucify me for saying that we can't judge Shakespeare in the cold, hard literary sense: we fucking CAN'T, deal with it. Even if you think you are, you are not. The paradigm has changed so dramatically since then that it is simply not possible. You are looking at the text through your own eyes, in your own time. You will naturally, without realizing, apply your own contextual lens.

How does it feel to be able to write bullshit all day long?

Witty writer, but also a hack, decadent and pretentious. Not only that, but he also was a pederast.

http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2011/11/15/the-pedophile-elephant-in-the-gay-activist-closet/

I've read Dorian Gray and don't really give a shit. So you could say I'm in between.

Have you read this story? It was the first of his that I read, or rather was read to me in primary school and found it quite moving.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/owilde/bl-owilde-selgi.htm

Actually, this is only true to a degree. You can never completely get rid of the cultural context of your own era, but simply spending enough time studying the language, literature, history and overall cultural context of the Elizabethan era will eventually allow you to be able to appreciate the quality of Shakespeare's writing much the same way you can appreciate Wilde now. You don't need to go very far for an example: would you be able to enjoy Wilde's writing several years ago, at the point when your knowledge of the English language, English culture and the Victorian era (and perhaps your personal maturity) was (I would guess) much less developed than it is now? It is even possible to achieve this with Bewoulf despite the limited resources of that period, with Shakespeare it's really only a question of whether you have the will (and the motivation) to put in the hours of study and research. You'd be able to switch between the codes like you're able to switch between English and Lebanese Arabic now (linguistically and culturally). Granted, the transition is never perfect or without bias, but clearly sufficient to enjoy Shakespeare or Marlowe (especially if you learn period-correct pronunciation, too, which plays a role in many of the puns).

From his balls sprang the magic that eventually gave us Olivia Wilde, so...

I welcome you to counter my points, if you can. I know that you can't, though.

Actually, I don't care. Save me the nonsense that will be your reply.

My favorite Oscar Wilde quote...

One of my favorite MP skits.