The Picture of Dorian Gray and Henry David Thoreau's Economy: Comparison and Contrast - Essay Example

? The Picture of Dorian Gray and Henry David Thoreau's “Economy Comparison and Contrast In Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray, the main character, Dorian Gray, literally loses his soul when the portrait that is made of him represented his soul, and, as such, took on the appearance of all his evil and misdeeds. However, one of the main points of this novel is that there is a danger in a life that is lived solely for material gain, to the neglect of spiritual sustenance. In Henry David Thoreau's “Economy,” which is the first chapter of his classic tome, Walden, which described his years of living in the woods, the message is much the same. That is that materialism is bad, and that a life lived simply is a life of virtue. The novel Picture of Dorian Gray and the thesis “Economy,” from Henry David Thoreau's Walden have completely different ways of presenting the same thesis – that materialism is generally bad, and leads to a shallow and unfulfilling life. The way that Dorian presents this basic theme is through, essentially, satire. After all, in this novel there is the famous quote that “nowadays, people know the price of everything and the value of nothing” (Wilde, 28). Dorian, himself, leads a casual life that is completely unfulfilling to himself, even though he has extreme beauty and wealth, and his beauty was such that it literally would never fade. He has all the material goods that a man could want, and the world at his feet, yet Dorian is extremely unhappy. This unhappiness is shown through his casual cruelty, such as his cruelty to Sybil Vane and his apparent cruelty to many others, although this cruelty is not explained thoroughly. There is the indication, however, that Dorian had made himself quite infamous in society, a point that was driven home by Hallwell, when Hallwell paid Dorian a visit because he was concerned about him. Dorian also was fascinated by cruelty and hypocrisy, reading endlessly about wealthy people throughout history who used their power for evil deeds, and were not apparently happy, even though they were given much in the way of material wealth. Therefore, it seems as if Wilde is making the point that, to put it in cliched terms, money does not buy happiness. Dorian was miserable, and Lord Henry didn't seem much happier, even though the two men were wealthy beyond measure and would be considered one of the “beautiful people” in today's society. Wilde portrayed the desperate inner lives of the idle rich by showing this desperation through the eyes of Dorian Gray. As noted below, Wilde also portrayed this desperation of the rich by Lord Henry, who made the point that society is like Dorian – society is what knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, and this is what makes society susceptible to Dorian's charms, while also being a corruptive influence on young Dorian Gray. Henry David Thoreau makes the same claim in “Economy,” but makes it in a totally different way. While Wilde recognizes the corruptive influence of materialism and wealth on society, and points it out through potent satire, Thoreau also recognizes that materialism and wealth is corruptive upon society, but made his point not by portraying a person in the throes of excess consumption, but by going into the woods and living a life that is completely different from a life that is dictated by materialism. Thoreau demonstrated that spiritual bankruptcy of a life dictated by possessions when he decided to live in the woods by himself and to try to make a life there that is simplified. Thoreau recognized that when people want material goods, and they feel the need to acquire, they must sacrifice parts of themselves – namely they must take on worry and constraint by taking a job that they may hate, simply to keep up with the Joneses. Financial worry is also something that would dog these people – that could be seen in modern times by the people who have overextended themselves in credit card debt so that they can have the latest big screen television. Thoreau had the firm belief that he would “rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself, than be crowded on a velvet cushion” (Thoreau, 36). This shows the value of a life lived simply – he not only was able to forget financial worries, but he did not have to share his values and lifestyle with a society that not only wouldn't understand the message that he was trying to convey, but would be openly hostile to it, since that society wants only to consume. Thus, Thoreau was able to portray, through his own eyes, the value of not acquiring, of not being materialistic. He did this through becoming ascetic himself. Dorian was also able to show the value of not being materialistic and not acquiring, by showing how the obsession with acquisitions and wealth worked to corrupt him. Dorian also has a portrayal that there can be a certain kind of corruption and moral decay in individuals who do not have to see their own immorality. Dorian was somebody who felt no urge to mitigate his evil deeds, because he, himself, did not have to suffer the effects of them – his portrait was what absorbed all of his bad deeds. Dorian did suffer the consequences, this is true, because, at some point, society shunned him. Yet, he suffered no inner ill-effects of his horrible deeds, because he, essentially, no longer had a soul – the painting was his soul. Dorian was able to give himself that which he longed for, without forbidding much to himself as he went along. He was influenced by Lord Henry who told Dorian that “soul grow sick with longings for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful” (Wilde 21). In other words, Lord Henry was telling Dorian that he should never deny himself that which he wanted, because his soul would grow sick with longing. So, instead of denying himself anything, he took everything he could, without consequence to his own sense of morality. Dorian was not necessarily an inherently bad person, but, because of the corruption in his soul, and the essential taking of his soul through the portrait, he became bad. While Dorian did evil deeds because he was soulless, literally, Thoreau was good – too good. He was opposite to Dorian in several different ways in this regard. He thought that his behavior was not necessarily something that was something to be proud of, saying that “the greatest part of what my neighbors call good, I believe in my soul to be bad and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?” (Thoreau, 42). Dorian often said that he desired to be good, yet couldn't bring himself to be good. Thoreau, on the other hand, inwardly desired to behave worse than he did, so he was, in some ways, opposite of Dorian. Yet, Thoreau's goodness, however much it was involuntary, came from his ascetic lifestyle. He apparently could not help but be good when he was in the environment that he was in – back to nature, back to living off the land, back to calmness and peacefulness. Being good was apparently the by-product of this kind of lifestyle. It seemed that Thoreau's soul was nourished by his way of living, and this gave him the peace of mind to behave in ways that his neighbors thought showed that he was inherently good. Dorian's lifestyle was such that he lived in a way that would be considered inherently bad. Dorian's soul was corrupted, and it showed in the painting. Thoreau's soul was nourished, and it showed by his goodness. Dorian and Thoreau were also different in how well they knew themselves. Namely, Dorian knew himself hardly at all. That was why he was impressionable at the very beginning to Lord Henry's words. He was a young man at the beginning of the novel, only being 20 years old. He seemed to be rather a cipher at the beginning of the novel, which was before Lord Henry gave Dorian his cynical view of life, and before Dorian realized his own beauty. Then, throughout the novel, it seemed that Dorian acted upon impulse, and never once examined himself or his own motives. He really didn't need to examine himself, as the results of his misdeeds went onto his portrait, not into his soul. There were occasions when Dorian seemed to show a certain level of self-regard, such as the times when he acknowledged that he was not living his life the way that he should, and that he really should be good – such as when he looked at himself after cruelly dismissing Sybil Vane, then decided that he would be good and go back to her. It was too late, of course, as Sybil had already killed herself, but at least he had a temporary moment of self-regard in this instance. There were a few other instances where he explicitly stated that he wanted to change his ways and be good. However, these instances were the exception, not the rule – Dorian, by and large, had no self-awareness of what he was doing. On the other hand, Thoreau did not know himself, or, at the very least, he purported to know himself. He stated that “I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. Unfortunately, I am confined to this theme by the narrowness of my experience” (Thoreau, 34). This is because Thoreau, during his period of time in the woods, was often completely isolated from others. He went to the village every day, but, during the period of time that he was not in the village, he was alone with his own introspection. That was really the main thrust of the Walden experiment – was to find himself and what he was about and what he wanted. To concentrate on how he would be in isolation and living in simplicity. The introspection was what he wanted, along with the idea that he should tell other men how to live simply and to show how getting back to one's roots can feed the soul. Because Thoreau was able to really examine himself, he came to know himself very well. This was also shown by the quote that “to be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust” (Thoreau, 25). He was literally in his own little world, but it was of his making. Where Dorian was living in his own world, too, in a way, in that he felt that he had to live his life without answering to anybody else, Thoreau was living in his own little world, but the main point of living in Thoreau's individual world is that he wanted to know himself. Dorian wanted to live in his own little world because he wanted to avoid himself. So, this is a major difference as well. There is a commonality in the two pieces of work, in that both have something to say about society. Wilde's message was that society was hypocritical – Lord Henry, who was really the voice of the novel, state that society tends to “balance stupidity by wealth, and vice by hypocrisy,” (Wilde 190), and tells Dorian, about the lives that people lead, stating that the two men are “in the native land of the hypocrite” (Wilde 147). The message about the hypocrisy of society is another major theme of the novel, and Dorian Gray himself was, in a way, a symbol of this hypocrisy, even though Dorian, himself, was not necessarily a hypocrite – he lived his life as he pleased, which was a lot of the problem. However, Dorian was living in a hypocritical world that was obsessed with wealth and beauty, yet the prevailing wisdom was that people should live morally. Society clearly wasn't living morally, and Dorian and his misdeeds exposed this. Dorian was really the symbol of how society really was, as opposed to how society saw itself during the Victorian Age. Thoreau, too, intended for his work to be a commentary on society. Society did not understand him – when he announced the project, people were not approving of what he was going to do. They not only worried about his health in the wintertime, but they also worried about him being out in the woods alone. Yet, Thoreau felt that he had to do what he was going to do, because he wanted to become one of the “worthies of the world” (Thoreau 48). He felt that only through being “as simple and well as nature ourselves, dispel the clouds which hang over our brows, and take up a little life into our pores,” that society could change their perception of what he was doing (Thoreau, 48). Society couldn't understand him, because society was not yet at the position where it was able to look inwardly and see how damaged it was by shallow concerns. Conclusion Both Dorian Gray and “Economy” had the essentially the same message about society and the dangers of living life for material and other selfish concerns. Dorian had it all, on the surface, but didn't have a soul. Therefore, all his beauty and all his wealth only served to exacerbate his unhappiness and general sense of not living a life that was fulfilled. Thoreau deliberately eschewed the same things that Dorian had – wealth and materials. Through this, Thoreau found a kind of peace, and was able to show society the good in living simply. Thus, the two novels have the same message, but this message is transported in different ways. Bibliography Thoreau, Henry David. “Economy,” in Walden. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2013, pp. 1-52. Print. Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. New York: Penguin Books, 2003. Print. Read More