Robertson 1

Chris Robertson

Dr. Foss

Engl. 478

9 Sept. 2016

Student as Expert: A Conversation

People: John and Kori. Scene: A dark and stormy night, inside a cozy apartment

looking out over the busy city.

Kori (Looking up from her laptop): Sweetie, what are you reading?

John (marking his place in a book): Mathew Arnold’s The Function of Criticism at the

Present Time. It is the essay that Oscar Wilde wrote a rebuttal to with The Critic as Artist.

Kori: What is there to rebut? Criticism is simply seeing “the object as in itself really is”

(Arnold 130). When talking about a piece of art or literature, the critic needs to keep the art unto

itself, “[r]efusing to lend itself to any of those ulterior, political, practical considerations about

ideas… which criticism as really nothing to do with” (Arnold 142).

John: That’s where Wilde diverges and disagrees with Arnold. Wilde, in his essay The

Critic as Artist, sets forth the argument that criticism is an art and is a tool to create art.

Kori: Criticism is not art; it “is really, in itself a baneful and injurious employment”,

criticism is far less noble than that of the art that it discusses. (Arnold

John: “All art is quite useless” (Wilde 17).

Robertson 2

Kori: Fine. What does Oscar Wilde believe the true purpose of criticism is? What art

could be created through criticism?

John: Wilde believes that the critic’s role as an artist is not based solely on what he says

and thinks a piece of literature means; instead, the critic’s true art is the conversation that he

creates and invites. Wilde believes that it is the argument created because of the criticism that is

the true art of the critic.

Kori: You’re just being dramatic. There is no way that Wilde would consider

conversation the art of criticism. Criticism is “really, in itself a baneful and injurious

employment” that allows for people to make erroneous claims and tell them to other people

(Arnold 132). When people talk about a piece of writing, it is just bickering and opinions.

John: Of course Wilde believes that criticism is all about a conversation; his entire essay

and its conception are founded on the idea of creating a conversation. Mathew Arnold’s essay is

laid out in a familiar format: He states his argument, presents the facts he sees, and then ends the

essay with his conclusion. Effectively, Mathew Arnold shuts out all forms of communication

with his essay.

Wilde “pulls Arnold out on a ledge” and forces open a dialogue that otherwise would

have remained closed (Felstiner 13). Wilde’s essay is labeled a rebuttal to Arnold’s because

Wilde engaged it and took a stance with the opposing opinion. This created an argument

between the two critics as they both present two very different ideas. Readers of these ideas

could then engage in both and decide for themselves. Felstiner asserts an idea that Wilde is

instructing readers to “treat the literary work not as a text but as a pretext for critical acumen”

(13). Felstiner proposes that Wilde means literature should be used to engage our critical

Robertson 3

faculties and have a reader think on what the text might be trying to assert. This will allow a

reader to have his or her opinions and talk about the book. This opinion is substantiated by Alice

Wood when she points out, “Wilde uses this susceptibility to gain impressions, as of value in

themselves” (903). Wood explains how Wilde believes that critics see a reflection of themselves

in order to find the meaning. Criticism is more a reflection of the soul than a reflection of the art,

and that is what helps start the conversation.

Kori: This sounds like a lot of hearsay, Oscar Wilde replied to a ton of criticism and

other people’s ideas. He often gave his opinions whether they were wanted or not. Look at

some of his dandy characters: Henry Wotton and Lord Darlington both, at some point, spout off

ideas for the sake of argument. This could be Wilde’s “Dramatist” coming out as a “less

interesting case of psychological study” (Elis 5). “The very name of Oscar Wilde challenges

criticism,” so this idea of Wilde having a deeper meaning is a little shallow (7).

John: Then look at the essay directly. The title of Wilde’s essay is Critic as Artist: A

Dialogue. Clearly, in specifying the essay as a dialogue, he is pointing to the idea that all

criticism is meant to be viewed as one side of a conversation instead of a one-sided dictation of

what someone thinks the text means. The entire essay is even structured as a conversation rather

than the proto-typical essays of the era, like Mathew Arnold’s. Wilde constructs his argument in

the guise of what could be read as a stage play: “Persons: Gilbert and Ernest. Scene: the library

of a house in Piccadilly, overlooking the Green Park” (Wilde 1009). This is Wilde’s artistic way

of inviting the reader, or his audience, into criticism rather than having them sit on the side.

Then, once you get into the meat of the dialogue, there is some true back and forth

between the characters. Wilde could have had the conversation weighted to one side rather than

the other. One character states that Oscar Wilde’s point is that criticism should be viewed as a

Robertson 4

form of artistic expression while the other character asks leading questions that could be used to

clarify the points of the dominant character. Even better, the second character could have been

completely silent. Now, Gilbert is the character who is giving his opinion on criticism as he sees

it; therefore, he does have a larger speaking role. With that, Ernest the other character does

interject and provide counter points when he feels Gilbert has not justified himself.

After Gilbert uses an example about the “Olympians” and the use of “Rhyme” and

“Robert Browning’s hands a grotesque, misshapen thing, which at times made him masquerade

in poetry as a low comedian” (Wilde 1012). Ernest responds asking for clarification and calling

out the points of the argument he sees as unjust:

“Ernest: There is something in what you say, but there is not everything in what

you say. In many points you are unjust.

Gilbert: It is difficult to not to be unjust to what one loves. But let us return to

the particular point at issue. What was it you said?

Ernest: Simply this: that in the best days of art there were no art-critics” (Wilde

1013).

At this point, Ernest is calling into question Gilbert’s logic and ideas; Ernest sees the validity of

some of Gilbert’s ideas, but he does not agree with all of them and offers an alternative idea.

This allows for further explanation and has Gilbert expand on his idea and disprove Ernest’s

claim that “in the best days of art there were no art-critics” (Wilde 1013).

Ernest also explains that artist create their art by using a medium such as marble,

painting, or the written word. An artist does not rely on someone else’s already-created work,

where a critic must rely on someone else’s work in order create criticism.

Robertson 5

Kori: That feels more like a small comment than a substantial argument. At the very

least, it is Wilde using Ernest to clarify his side of the argument. This makes Wilde’s essay no

different than Arnold’s other than aesthetically choosing to use characters in order to present his

argument. This is all simply Wilde’s taste for the dramatic.

John: For that one instance, yes, Ernest appears to be giving Gilbert a way to expand

upon his argument. But within that same passage, Ernest has a lengthy argument that the

Grecian society is without critics. Ernest states that during the time of Ilyssus, “There were no

silly art congress… teaching the mediocrity how to mouth… no tedious art magazines” (Wilde

1015). All of these contemporary Victorian institutions are used to educate the population on art

and give them opinions. Since these practices were not around, Ernest postulates that the ancient

Greeks were able to produce the best art because they did not have art critics.

Kori: Alright [sic], I will concede that Wilde does provide counter arguments of

substance within his essay. That does not mean that Wilde thinks anything of the critics. His

essay is called Critic as Artist not Critic as Conversationalist. In fact, many critics read Wilde

“as an enemy of authenticity and depth,” so his rebuttal to Arnold at this point might be nothing

more than Wilde being flippant (Cohn 476).

John: That is always a possibility, but look, it is late and we have work in the morning.

Let’s call it a night for now, and we can pick up with this discussion tomorrow.

Kori: I like this conversation and want you to show where else Wilde believes that

criticism is all about the conversation that can be had.

John: Fine. Wilde can be “an enemy to authenticity and depth,” as you claim (Cohn

476). But this does not make his belief of conversation as the true focus of criticism any less

Robertson 6

valid. Wilde believes that art and life are forms of imitation, and that subsequently criticism

itself is an art unto itself. Many critics, such as Riquelme, will point out that Wilde has a “style

of decentering, often in order to reaffirm that decentering ‘rejects conventional, institutionalized,

essentializing attitudes without itself becoming totalizing’” (qtd. In Cohn 476). Here, the

traditional convention would be an essay where Wilde states his ideas; however, because Wilde’s

argument should be viewed as art, his inspiration should come from somewhere.

Wilde has borrowed characters and used different people in his own life within his works.

He has even plagiarized his own work: Ernest appears in both Critic as Artist and three times in

The Importance of Being Ernest. Even Wilde’s children, Cyril and Vivian, have made an

appearance in his works. Wilde, once again, is imitating his own life and actions to showcase the

importance of the dialogue that criticism inspires.

Kori: Your argument is that Oscar Wilde plagiarized himself or, at the very least,

imitated his own life in creating his argument.

John: He is not so much plagiarizing himself here, except for Ernest, but he is drawing

from his own life. Wilde had many open and public conversations with critics, mainly through

retorts and comments published in letters to the editor and other articles in both newspapers and

literary magazines.

Wilde was perceived as an arrogant author who responded to almost any negative

criticism that was published about any of his works. However, all of his responses to these

critics carried a similar tone; Wilde never took a definitive stance in his retorts. Most of the

responses that Wilde fired back at his critics are left very open ended, as if he wanted them to

carry on this dialogue, if they were capable.

Robertson 7

When Dorian Gray was first published some of the reviews that came out called the story

a “study in Puppydom,” or “cheap research among the garbage of French Decadents” (Beckson

271). The critics also attack the story for the lack of morality that seems to come forth from this

Of course, Oscar Wilde could not let something like this stand so he shot back with his own

interpretation and argument in his Letters: “All excess, as well as all renunciation, brings its own

punishment…. Yes; there is a terrible moral in Dorian Gray – a moral which the prurient will not

be able to find in it, but which will be revealed to all whose minds are healthy. Is this an artistic

error? I fear it is. It is the only error in the book. (Letters 259)” (Beckson 271). Here we have

Wilde posing an obviously bated question and providing a seemingly facetious answer that is

daring to be challenged. Oscar Wilde, the man who says, “There is no such thing as a moral or

immoral book. Books are well written or badly written,” has just come out and said that his book

has a moral (Wilde 17). The reviews do not even seem to be addressing the quality of the

writing as much as they are appalled at the subject matter the book seems to address. Why

would Wilde admit to putting a moral within his book and then call it an “artistic error” if not to

spur the conversation with contradictions (Letters 259). Wilde explains in the Foreword of the

story that books cannot be moral or immoral but here his only error is the moral. Wilde calling

out an error within his own book and egging on the critics is a way of promoting the

conversation, daring them to interpret and look deeper into his story.

Of course, this was not the only time that Wilde wrote back against criticism. A critic

from Scotland wrote about Wilde’s The Portrait of Mr. W. H. saying that the serial it was

published in “was particularly good… with the exception of one article clearly out of place”

(Beckson 290). To which Wilde offers his colorful retort in his Letters: “To be exiled to

Scotland to edit a Tory paper in the wilderness is bad enough, but not to see the wonder and

Robertson 8

beauty of my discovery of the real Mr W. H. is absolutely dreadful. I sympathize deeply with

you, and can only beg you to return to London where you will be able to appreciate a real work

of art. The Philistines in their vilest form have seized on you” (qtd. In Beckson 290). Here

Wilde is addressing a very important set of claims that Harris is making in his criticism. Harris

explains in his critique that Wilde’s story “set everyone talking and arguing” (Beckson 290).

Oscar Wilde’s The Portrait of Mr W. H., a fictitious story about Shakespeare’s mysterious lover,

got everyone talking and wondering if it were true or not. Wilde’s story here, which he presents

to be factual, is a way to create a conversation with his readers and the critics.

When addressing this critique, Wilde invites the man to have an open conversation and

dialogue with him. Wilde, of course, does address the fact that Harris works for a Tory paper in

Scotland, but instead of discounting the man’s arguments, he invites him back to London. Wilde

could have simply dismissed the critic as a Tory and tried to discredit him; instead, he leaves an

opportunity for more dialogue to continue and to allow for further conversation. Wilde could

have not addressed the article at all.

Kori: Hold on one moment. Your argument that Wilde believes that criticism revolves

around a conversation is based around letters to papers. All of these replies can be seen as Wilde

mocking these critics; he is simply being sarcastic in the way he addresses them. The first reply

involving Dorian Gray, you note that Wilde asks a question. Wilde asks, “Is this an artistic

error?” and then he even turns around and answers it (Beckson 271). This can easily be

explained as a rhetorical question, and the fact that he answers it makes the question a moot

point. If Wilde wanted there to be more of a conversation, wouldn’t he have just stopped at the

question and not answered it?

Robertson 9

Then he replies to Harris, a man “exiled to Scotland,” someone who probably cannot

even come back to London (Beckson 290). So, Wilde extending an invitation for him to come

back to London and experience real, or good art, seems a little hollow.

John: You are right, of course. Wilde could have published both of these responses in

jest. However, Wilde still addressed both of these men when he could have said nothing. Just

because a question is rhetorical doesn’t mean it can’t be answered. If Harris is exiled and is

unable to return, then why write back to his paper at all? Surely being exiled warrants very little

attention from a writer in London. The very idea that Wilde would address these articles shows

how highly Wilde thinks of criticism and the conversation that it creates.

Kori: Wilde can open a conversation with people who criticize his book, but that doesn’t

prove that he thinks criticism itself is about the conversation that it creates. Wilde wrote back to

a lot of people when they spoke negatively about his work; look at his poems and the response he

sent to the professors at Oxford after they wouldn’t accept his poems. Wilde, as you said,

plagiarized and was called out for having un original poems. The reviewers of the poems said

they were poems from Shakespeare, Phillip Sidney “and by sixty more” (Beckson 273). To this

Wilde’s only response was, “Chief regret indeed [is] that there should still be at Oxford such a

large number of young men who are ready to accept their own ignorance as an index, and their

own conceit as a criterion of any imaginative and beautiful work” (Beckson 273).

That response neither opens room for dialogue nor does it try to engage with the

professors at Oxford who reviewed his work.

John: Oscar still replied to them. Even if the letter back was meant to be read as snarky

and condescending, he still offered a dialogue for the conversation -the same way he responded

Robertson 10

to Arnold with Critic as Artist. Wilde is still engaging the work and the dialogue that can be

had.

Kori: So far the only places you’ve shown Wilde can create a conversation is when

someone criticizes his work, or in response to Mathew Arnold. If Wilde believes that Criticism

is about the dialogue then where is it applied to works outside of his own?

John: Wilde, at one point, criticizes the “ordinary English novelists”; these are the very

people who would be his constituents, writing to entertain the same people for whom Wilde

writes (Beckson 273). Wilde calls their characters “far too eloquent”; he wishes they would

think more and talk less. Wilde then closes his response to the contemporary novelist by looking

at the readers of those novels “they are the only relaxation for intellectually unemployed”, what

better way to spur on a conversation than to critique his own audience (Beckson 273)? Here

Wilde is creating a conversation by arguing with the people he writes for, those same people that

will read his stories or see his plays. This could create a flurry of conversations as people defend

or attack Wilde’s position. Why else would someone like Wilde call out his own audience?

Kori: Wilde does make some brash statements, and I can see how they would generate a

conversation. So far, all of your examples seem to focus on a negative idea. The critiques on

Dorian focused on what was wrong with the book. Same with the Portrait of Mr W. H. If Wilde

only responds to negative, that skews the perception of the conversation.

John: Yes, those examples do focus on Wilde’s responses to negative feedback to his

writings, but he also responded to people who enjoyed his writings. The most prominent of these

responses was Wilde’s letter to Mr. Payne. Payne wrote to Wilde expressing how much he

enjoyed the book The Picture of Dorian Gray. Oscar Wilde’s letter that he wrote back to Mr.

Robertson 11

Payne is perhaps the greatest example of Wilde’s care for the conversation caused by criticism:

“The book that poisoned, or made perfect Dorian Gray does not exist: it is a fancy of mine

merely. I am so glad you like that strange coloured book of mine – it contains much of me in it –

Basil Hallward is what I think I am; Lord Henry what the world thinks of me; Dorian what I

would like to be -on other ages perhaps” (Wilde). Here Wilde explains that his ideas and

influences, such as the book Dorian becomes obsessed with, are nothing more than his own

whims. Wilde, at this point, is posing more questions than he is giving answers to when

responding to this fan. Wilde tells Mr. Payne that in “other ages perhaps” he would like to be

Dorian Gray (Wilde). Yet, the strongest argument that is presented in this letter is one that

directly goes against Mathew Arnold’s criticism. Oscar Wilde explains that The Picture of

Dorian Gray contains much of himself Basil is what Wilde thinks he is; Lord Henry is how he

thinks the public sees him; and Dorian is someone he might want to be, maybe.

This is Oscar Wilde showing his fan that outside influences have to be taken into account

when reading and criticizing a piece of writing. Wilde is stating that the “highest form of

criticism really is, the record of one’s own soul” (Wood 903). If the author puts some of himself

in his work, presumably his soul, then the critic should have to put himself in the ideas that he

takes away from any piece of writing. Gilbert in Critic as Artist uses this same argument when

trying to explain Criticism as an art to Ernest. “The meaning of any beautiful created thing is, at

least, as much in the soul of him who looks at it as I was in the soul who wrought it” (Wilde

1029).

Wilde is saying that all art and subsequently criticism “is in its essence purely subjective”

(Wood 903). The truest ideas and feelings we get from such works of literature will be

Robertson 12

discovered in these conversations. Wilde knew this to be true which is why he made some of the

claims he did, and why he would choose to make an essay about criticism into a dialogue.

With so many people coming from different places in their lives and having different

experiences, then each person should see or read something a little bit different. This leaves

room for interpretation, arguments, conversations, and dialogues to happen. It is this ability to

create the conversation that makes criticism so important to Oscar Wilde; the actual criticism

itself might be enjoyable to read, but that is not where it should stop. Criticism should continue

well past the paper it is printed on and the mind of the critic. Criticism needs to be talked about,

disagreed with, argued, and proven; that’s what Wilde shows readers in his essay The Critic as

Artist, and it is what Wilde proves in his actions.

Kori: That is a lot of liberty you are taking with that argument just because Wilde wrote

his essay as a dialogue and his comments to critics and fans.

John: That’s the joy of subjectivity though. You and I can read the same text but not

read the same work.

Kori: I think that is enough talk of subjectivity for the night; we should be getting ready

for bed.

John: (Gesturing to the clock) We should be getting ready for work.

Kori: (Groan inwardly)

John: We can at least enjoy this quiet morning together.