Lord Henry Wotton is, according to Sutherland, an "evil angel," whatever that is. Lord Henry was many things, but he was neither of these. Sutherland says Dorian Gray was a brilliant conversationalist, but there is no evidence in the text to support this claim. It was Lord Henry, not Dorian, who kept all dinner goers spellbound with his ironic wit. "Dorian comes across a work of literature which will change his life," claims Sutherland. Not so. The book was a gift to him from Lord Henry. Sutherland says Dorian's would-be assassin was Tom Vane. Really? There is no character named Tom in the novel. Of course he means James Vane, the distraught, avenging brother of Sibyl Vane who has died from Dorian's callous neglect of her broken heart.

Close readings of other chapters reveal similar detailed textual errors. However, my purpose in writing now is not to belittle Sutherland's enthusiasm and intellect. In fact I love the concept of what he has undertaken here and in series via Oxford. I merely wish to urge him to be more judicious and careful in his future critical rambles through our great literature.


fun for readers of Victorian fiction   May 27, 1999
 7 out of 7 found this review helpful

There are a lot of us about. And the literary establishment doesn't approve of us at all. I mean the sort of people who ask the achetypal questions of a work of literature you're not supposed to ask - Where did Heathcliff go for 3 years? How many children has Lady Macbeth? What did Billy Joe throw off the Talahassie Bridge? Professor Sutherland is, remarkably, one of us, and his book attempts to answer some of these niggling questions. The text is lively and readable, interesting even if you've never read the original book. This is high praise for a book of literary criticism, which are becoming more and more impenetrable to the uninitiated with every year (have you tried reading Tony Tanner on Wuthering Heights for example?) John Sutherland is extremely good value for money.