Wow what a piece of fucking garbage

Never read it but if you wanna read pure boring scum than read Steppenwolf. Really popular among intellectuals but drags on and on

>>8386219
Huh never heard of it. Maybe you're just not patrician enough to read it? Do you even know what it is? Are you sure? Please respond quickly

>>8386207
This is actually a pretty mediocre book. A weak plot and message (I understand Wilde cared little for these, but whatever) fleshed out with fairly pedestrian florid description. Wilde was an amazing comic playwright and short story writer, I have no idea where this claustrophobic miserable little book came from. Wotton was quite funny, but he was too obviously a caricature of the decadant aesthete.

>>8386316
...what did you think the "message" was?

>>8386359
That you should de-spook yourself like dorian

>>8386225
Maybe I am not. The first part of it is alright but then it goes into psychoanalytical shit ( or so the translator says) and it just gets utterly boring.

he's an elegant writer and i enjoyed it more than the plot/meaning etc

>>8386371
lol

>>8386740
His writing style is so vapid it's difficult to read. He has such a huge hard on for the aristocracy but completely misses the point and thinks that being "elegant" is just rattling off his shallow quotables

Wooooooow whooooAAAAAAAAAAA Wilde BLOWED THE FUC-K-I-NG OUT

>>8386939
Wilde is one of the easiest authors to read. Also he's well aware how "shallow" most of his quotes are, he makes fun of it quite a bit in his plays. If anything people take Wilde too seriously

His plays are superior, and what is worse is that there are jokes in the book that are verbatim from his plays.

>>8387474
Agreed, Wild's plays are probably his best works

Also I think he made a bet that he could write a novel with a friend and wrote it in about a week or so. So it's not that surprising that it's not totally original

What's your interpretation of the ending though?

>No-one itt has read Salome
>OP somehow thought the moral of DG was to go full hedonist
>People saying Wilde is difficult to read
>He thinks that it isn't a critique of this and aristocracy, as made clear by the only bad bit of the book, his realist chapter.

>>8386740

I found his style pretentious. Every second sentence in Dorian Gray ended with an exclamation mark.

Dear Dorian! My good man! Don't you understand Dorian! said Lord Henry. Oh how youth is so beautiful!

It was a pretty shitty book desu.

>>8386207

If you read anything other than the uncensored version you Fucked up. The uncensored version reads a lot like Huysmans (specifically A Rebours) and doesnt have that subplot about Sibyl Vane's brother. She's like ten pages of the novel and that's it, the rest is a catalog of decadence.

>>8387738
Salome was as disappointing as Dorian Gray

>>8387828
found the pleb

>>8387738
But he's not difficult to read because he uses big words, he's difficult to read because of all the eye rolls one has to do when struggling through his "paradoxes". I say, it is difficult to read a book with big words, but dreadfully difficult to read a book that is shit! Wouldn't you agree Dorian!

>>8386702
nah, the first half was the boring one after that it got better

>>8388764
Yeah that's fair, Wilde often feels like he's on the edge of being wonderful and then indulges in aphorisms for 10 pages. I blame catholicism.

>>8386207
I heard someone say once that without Chapter 11 the book would not be a novel. I tend to agree with that.