The Picture of Dorian Gray

Dorian Gray is gorgeous. No, really, he is. Just ask anyone, including Dorian. If 19th century England had People magazine, he'd snag Sexiest Man Alive every year. Sadly, though, as so many wise sages have pointed out, "Beauty fades." And Dorian is terrified of the idea that his youthful good looks will leave him. One day, after viewing a painting that his artist friend Basil has done of him, Dorian has a sudden fit of petulance, in which he wishes the portrait would age for him and that he would never have to have his stunning face marred by the effects of time. As luck would have it, his wish is mysteriously granted. He never ages, but the painting does. In fact, the painting doesn't just age; it also reflects all of the nasty sins and debauchery that Dorian engages in. Dorian initially finds this amusing and tries to see how much he can alter the picture through his own actions, but then things get complicated. As in involving murder complicated . . .

The Picture of Dorian Gray is Oscar Wilde's only novel. I am more familiar with Wilde's plays and his famous witty one-liners, of which I am a big fan. (Nobody comes close to Wilde when it comes to wielding sarcasm.) When I finally sat down to read this Victorian horror classic, I knew with Wilde as the author, it would be a true original. I was not in the least disappointed.

This is not one of those stories that's going to keep you up at night, expecting to be attacked by a boogie man. But it is creepy and very atmospheric. What I especially liked about it was the story's setting and tone. Most Victorian Gothics feature brooding country mansions and remote settings. I love these kinds of Gothics, but this tale is set in London and follows Dorian through the superficial urban upper class society that he is such an intrinsic part of. The resulting tone is amusing and at times more reminiscent of a comedy of manners that lampoons society's hypocrisy. This novel was denounced as hedonistic in its time, which amuses me because at one point in the book, Dorian's mentor, Lord Henry, explains that "The books that the world call immoral are books that show the world its shame." Speaking of Henry, he's easily my favorite character here. No, he is not the noblest character in this book. In point of fact, he's actually even more dissolute than Dorian. But Wilde gives Henry all of the best lines, including somewhat mystical sounding philosophical quips that never failed to put a smile on my face, even when they made absolutely no sense.

This book was written in the 1890s, so if you dislike the more flowery style of the 19th century, you may find this book a bit slow in spots. Nevertheless, The Picture of Dorian Gray is the fascinating tale of one man's moral collapse and the portrait that reflects his inmost secrets and haunts him relentlessly. Extra kudos for one of the best ending paragraphs I've read in a horror tale. If you're a fan of atmospheric literary horror or Victorian literature, you'll love this book.

~

Next Week: Hmm . . . I am not sure. I have a huge stack of books I am reading through as summer winds down, so I can't guarantee what will be reviewed next time.

~

This Week in Literary History:

16 July 1951: J.D. Salinger's classic coming of age novel The Catcher in the Rye is released. I must admit, when I first read this novel, I sorta hated it. Holden's rambling narration nearly drove me to the brink of insanity. But I talked to so many people who said the book changed their life and I felt like a bad English major for hating on it (and secretly I did love the episodic plot and the extremely realistic dialogue-like tone of the narration), so I kept reading this novel. It became a bit of an obsession to uncover what it was that was so magical about this book. Each time I read it, I liked it more. Finally, after the third read, something clicked and now I really like this novel and defend it to people who hate on it. The Catcher in the Rye features a complex protagonist with a memorable voice in an adventure that is alternately poignant and hilarious. I'd venture to say that you won't soon forget Holden Caulfield.

Dracula

I’m getting sick and tired of people who refer to the creatures in the Twilight Saga as vampires. I beg to differ. Vampires are not sparkly wimps with whiny guilt complexes. Vampires are big, bad creatures of the night who unremorsefully prey upon the souls (and blood) of innocent victims. I firmly believe that an intervention program for Twilight fans needs to be created, so that these people can recognize real vampires. These poor, misguided souls should be introduced to the biggest, baddest vampire of them all – the most diabolical (and quite awesome) Count Dracula.

After centuries of terrorizing his native Transylvania, the Count has decided to relocate to Victorian England. As can be expected, his bloodsucking ways upset some of the locals. Lord Godalming (after his fiancée succumbs to Dracula) joins forces with his two close friends, Quincey Morris and Dr. John Seward; English attorney, Jonathan Harker (whom Dracula used to come to England); Harker’s wife (and Dracula’s possible next victim), Mina; and Dutch vampire expert, Professor Van Helsing, to end Dracula’s reign of evil. Will they succeed? Can Dracula be stopped?

Although this book was regarded as schlock when it was first published and some readers still denounce Dracula as trashy, I really enjoyed this novel. I found Dracula’s misdeeds and Van Helsing and his associates' quest to kill Dracula quite entertaining…and scary. There are several scenes in this book that just flat-out made my skin crawl! The pacing is really good too. The first part of the book (when Harker is in Dracula’s castle) is terrifying; after Dracula arrives in England, the story then becomes something of an intriguing mystery as you wait for the characters to realize exactly what Dracula is up to; and the finale is a really exciting chase as Van Helsing and company pursue Dracula back to Romania. This book is told through multiple points of view and entirely through diaries, letters, and documents. I’m a big fan of stories with multiple points of view and experimental narration, so I enjoyed this unique approach. My only qualm: Occasionally Bram Stoker’s writing is too melodramatic for my taste (specifically the newspaper article on Dracula’s arrival in England), but I didn’t find this to be too distracting – just a little overdone.

Dracula is a horror classic for a reason. Dracula is a formidable villain, and Van Helsing is a worthy adversary. What I really liked about this book, though, was it’s genuinely scary. Other 19th century horror classics I’ve read (such as Frankenstein and Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde) were really good and the concept of the novels were terrifying, but I didn’t actually get scared reading those books. Not so with Dracula. (In fact, as I’m writing this review, I have one eye looking over my shoulder in case a caped Romanian count with suspiciously pointy teeth drops by.) If you’re looking for an exciting adventure and a blood chilling horror read, get a copy of Dracula (and some garlic and crucifixes – just in case.)

Persuasion

I love Jane Austen's novels. I'm not too picky about writers: I love writers who tell great stories (even if their writing style doesn't raise pulses); I love writers who create amazing characters (even if their plots are a touch dull); I love writers who have distinctive styles (even if nothing happens in their books); I love writers who can transport me to another time and place (even if their plots and characters a bit predictable). What I love about Jane Austen is she is capable of doing all of the above. Her novels all tell great stories, feature amazing characters, display her distinctive style, and transport me to Regency-era England. Her final complete novel, Persuasion, is no exception.

Anne Elliot still rues the day she refused to marry the dashing Captain Wentworth. Her wealthy family deemed him "not good enough" for an Elliot. Eight years later, the Elliots are on the decline, Wentworth is a wealthy man, and Anne is still single, convinced that no man but Wentworth would satisfy her. But Wentworth has neither forgotten nor forgiven Anne. He's set his sights on her one of her sister's husband's sisters, and he barely even acknowledges Anne. Will Anne be able to win back Captain Wentworth? Will her family finally stop snubbing Wentworth? Will Wentworth see that Anne is far superior to that dreadful Louisa?

With Jane Austen novels, one always knows the books will end happily. The suspense and appeal comes from finding out how Austen's characters overcome the often insurmountable obstacles to their happiness. Persuasion features Austen's knack for weaving tangled webs for her characters. This novel also fully displays Austen's signature elegant, witty style, and her knack for lushly describing the social mores and manners of her day and time. One reason I enjoyed this book, though, is that Austen broke with her traditional stories in this one. Instead of describing the wooing of a teen-aged heiress to a man who is of greater or equal social position, Persuasion tells of the second romance between the nearly thirty year old Anne and a man who is most certainly her social inferior.

If you're a Jane Austen fan, you'll love how Jane tweaks with her own formula, but still manages to be, well, Jane Austen. If you're not a Jane Austen fan (is there such a thing?), try Persuasion. It's less typical than her other works, so you may enjoy it.

Frankenstein

If you were to take a random poll asking people what comes to mind when they think of "Frankenstein", they'll probably tell you that they envision a green monster with bolts in his neck moaning like a zombie while a crazy-haired scientist shrieks, "It's alive!" and a hunchback named Igor looks on. This is a great summary of most Frankenstein movies. Fortunately, Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein has none of these elements and is all the better for it.

The basic plot of Frankenstein will be familiar to most people, even if they're unaware that there is a book about Frankenstein. A brilliant doctor (named Frankenstein) creates a hideously ugly creature. The creature then begins terrorizing the good doctor and creates a tremendous amount of mayhem and horror in the process. What sets Frankenstein the book heads and shoulders above Frankenstein movies is the portrayal of the creature. Instead of a dumb, lumbering brute, the creature is an extremely intelligent, articulate, inquisitive, kind, and sensitive being who appreciates nature and literature. His better qualities make him an even more frightening villain once his anger at Dr. Frankenstein (for creating and then abandoning him) is unleashed. Victor Frankenstein also emerges as a more complex and flawed character. Intelligent and basically decent, he eventually realizes his error in creating the monster. Initially, I greatly sympathized with the creature, but as he wrecked his vengeance on the doctor, I began to feel for Victor. Although flawed, the doctor is not unlikeable. These two complex characters are what made this book a great read for me. By painting each one as more gray than black or white, Shelley makes her story seem much more real and, consequently, terrifying. Shelley's classic horror story is also a powerful meditation on revenge, obsession, and responsibility. This book is far more philosophical than it gets credit for being, yet this in no way makes Frankenstein a struggle to read.

The book has its share of flaws, but these problems do not negatively impact the book. The supporting characters, compared to Frankenstein and the creature, are not fleshed out well. Then again, they really don't need to be. These characters serve to illuminate Frankenstein and the creature's good and bad sides, so they don't really need to be as deep and interesting. Furthermore, all of these characters are present in reminiscences of the doctor and the creature, so it makes sense that they'd be recalled with a bias, for good or bad. The only other issue I had with this book was the structure. Because it is told entirely through reminiscence, the action occasionally lags a little. This is most obvious in the first few chapters. However, once Frankenstein creates the monster, the pace picks up and the book becomes quite engrossing.

Overall, I really enjoyed Frankenstein. The book's philosophical weight both surprised and delighted me. I also found the story quite entertaining. This story definitely benefits from the complex characters that Shelley created. This book, by being complex, is more terrifying and intriguing than the watered down versions presented on film.