Miscellanies

Gazette, Ju

your article upon Dorian Gray. This is not so. I do not propose to discuss fully the matter here, but I feel bound to

t he wishes to produce, seems not to have the slightest idea of the temper in which a work of art should be approache

iter has ventured into the perilous grounds of literary criticism I ask you to allow me, in fairness not mer

es. They are puppies. Does he think that literature went to the dogs when Thackeray wrote about puppydom? I

am of opinion that Lord Henry Wotton is an excellent corrective of the

subordinate to artistic effect and musical cadence; and any peculiarities of syntax that may occur in Dorian Gray are deliberately intended, and are introduced to show

y admit I cannot imagine how a casual reference to Suetonius and Petronius Arbiter can be construed into evidence of a desire to impress an unoffending and ill-educated publ

e who take the Honour School of Liter? Humaniores; and as for the Satyricon it is pop

ubject because it is dangerous. About such a suggestion there is this to be said. Romantic art deals with the exception and wi

s reason; bad people stir one's imagination. Your critic, if I must give him so honourable a title, states that the people in my story have no

s to invent, not to chronicle. There are no such people. If there were I would not

in literature is to re

a journalistic form, the comedy of Much Ado about Noth

d and suppressed by a Tory Government, will, no doubt, rush to it and read it. But, alas! they will find that it

rous and absurd vanity. Dorian Gray, having led a life of mere sensation and pleasure, tries to kill conscience, and at that moment kills himself. Lord

nd in it, but it will be revealed to all whose minds are healthy. Is this an artistic error? I

EET, CHELSE