Soul 31, By Oscar Wilde

494 Words1 Page

It is said that Lord Henry is Oscar Wilde’s “mouthpiece” for his “own utopian visions” (Fritz, 304) in the novel. Yet, his conduct goes against the principles of Individualism Wilde defends in his essay and therefore, one could ask why he would render Lord Henry as an evil character. Like Wilde, he is “a figure of paradox and contradiction” (Gagnier, 18): while supporting the doctrines of Individualism by spreading its theories, Henry also embodies what wrecks them by interfering in Dorian’s life and becomes an example of the effects of society’s moral on the individual. More precisely, he becomes a paragon of “a community corrupted by authority [which is unable] to understand or appreciate Individualism, […] a monstrous and ignorant thing …show more content…

But, “sickened, not by the Sabrina Tschanz 10 crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted” (Wilde, Soul 31), Wilde protests against these laws and completely challenges the notion of good and bad ensuing from them. By creating an individualist Lord Henry who should have been seen as good according to his ideologies, he creates the ultimate paradigm: the Victorian reader – as well as the contemporary one – becomes Public Opinion and grants him/herself the right to judge Henry’s behaviour according to his/her own moral notion, and defines him as decadent and bad, demonstrating that Individualism cannot live under the oppressing values of a Victorian society that defines morality. What is good? What is bad? The definitions of such notions cannot be explained impartially because they always rest on cultural, societal and even personal values, and render morality arbitrary. If values are necessary in order to create a line of conduct and harmonious systems for some to live in, they are usually stripping others from their liberties. Governments and Church dictate their values to control the people, to subjugate them to the fear of laws

Open Document