The Picture of Dorian Gray

The first 6 chapters of this book have been very interesting and especially entertaining. I find Lord Henry to be extremely comical in that a majority of what he says contains two opposing ideals. Or in some cases it seems as if everything the reader thought was "true" about intellectuals, art, the upper class, etc. is actually not true at all. 

Dorian Gray interests me, as well, and I am curious about why he is so influential to Basil's art, to Lord Henry (he has 17/18 portraits of him). I think that his influence, specifically on Lord Henry grabs my attention. Because it seems that Lord Henry at the beginning tries to manipulate or push DG in a certain direction, making him think of new ideas, etc. But as Lady Henry says, he has over 17 portraits of the lad hanging in his house. 

This is very weird, because for someone who usually feels in "control" or the person that does the manipulating, having almost a relic or infatuation with someone else is uncommon. Or maybe it is not? I just feel as if Lord Henry is hiding a lot more than he leads on and that these portraits he keeps are a sign of how much influence DG really has, unknowingly. 

Structuralism

I can agree that to a certain extent words are arbitrary. As we discussed in class, the idea of naming a table a "table" is something that does not make sense. At least, we could have named anything something other than it is called. 

This idea goes farther into languages and how many things we say in one language may not translate into another language. However, I think that in terms of literary content when a book or a movie, etc is in one language and it is translated you lose something. I think many people agree on this, due to the translation error. 

Yet, when you try to analyze a piece of work without the language, you still lose something. I think the only way to truly interpret or master a piece of work is if you can understand the original language, the culture, etc. But than again, no piece of work can ever truly be "mastered". 

Liberal Humanism

Points #2 and #5 that are described in the liberal humanism chapter seem contrary to each other. Number two states that whatever text you read has its own meaning within itself. This own meaning than speaks to each of us due to our individuality. Yet, my question is, how can there ever be a true reading critic? Or, how can you have critics that are more "correct" than others? 

I guess I am just confused, because if the book has its own meaning and we all have our own individuality and each interpret a book on our own personalities/experiences, etc. how can a book truly be interpreted by "experts"? 

Yet, we also seem to somehow interpret and see similar meanings in books. Are these points/meanings that we see in the book, the only meaning we can consider valid? (Because it is the only meaning that is universal?) 

I think that these universal "truths" we read in books can only be considered good criticism when others also acknowledge these truths.