The media have become - it seems to me - a spectacle-producing machine rather than a mirror of reality. When I see the news in America, it seems like the producers are not interested at all in reporting the news, but rather interested in producing drama. It is incredible! It is quite possible that something similar, but to a smaller scale, may be happening in the Old Continent...

However, I don't think the media machine is the only responsible for the celebrity culture - at least, not in the society of Social Media.

There is, however, a difference between fame and celebrity!

So celebrities, due to their outreach, have (or should have) a moral duty towards the society that put them on a pedestal...

But only the most excellent are granted celebrity status. For example, let's look at sports that only very rarely produce someone who would be considered a celebrity. In Spain, we have a young ice skater whose spectacular performances have made it to the news, granting him recognition - but it was the fact that people were afraid that he would be forgotten two days after that (or whenever Cristiano Ronaldo did something stupid yet again) that motivated people to publicly support him through social media, by commenting on his webpage, following him, and sharing his videos, effectively producing a snowball effect that would protect him from ephemerality.

So here we have the first two ingredients of a celebrity: first, a kickstart - recognition -; second, a committed audience.

And just like the guys from Daft Punk, he doesn't let us see his face...

Besides being a comical statement, it is also interesting to see the differences between Elena and Sasha. Both of them would fall under the category of "common people" - yet they are so different! What is it that makes them common? Coming back to our society, don't you get the feeling that celebrities sometimes just try to be as distinct from other celebrities as they possibly can?

Ah. This comparison counters my previous annotation, if we are to trust the analogy...

Will she become a celebrity just because she received an award, or a title? Sure, her labour has been recognised; but does recognition immediately grant celebrity?

Almost all of us care about making our countries (or our communities, or our families...) better. Aren't celebrities also interested in this? Maybe what makes a celebrity a 'bad celebrity' is the fact that, perhaps, they are not that invested in improving the society they belong to, rather than making profit out of their status.

Again, it is a pity that he doesn't expand this point - why do we need celebrities? How are 'better celebrities' better than no celebrities? It is indeed an argument you would nod your head to, but upon further consideration, stop and meditate about why this is like that...

Reminds me of Hobbes' Leviathan. Why do we need someone to look up to? Someone to follow? Aren't we part of a society that appreciates originality (I am confident that is something Southern Europe and America have in common...)?

"Irresponsible" in the same way as it would be irresponsible not to vote in a democratic election: we all take part in the creation of culture, and celebrities are, in a way, the result of the democracy of capitalism - when enough people decide to give their money and time (seeing their movies, listening to their songs in Spotify, watching their videos on YouTube...) to someone, that person is enabled, in a way, to become a celebrity. It is irresponsible to let other people have their say on who should be a celebrity (through consumption) and then complain about the result without having partaken in the process.

'Celebrity culture.' Interesting term - a pity Boton assumes the reader has a preconceived idea of what this is and doesn't expand on it.

It comes across as an arrogant statement at first - who dares say that I am not serious if I disagree with what this person is saying? However, it is just one of Botton's favourite techniques - a bit of sarcasm to release some tension, making the reader feel a bit humorous about himself. Boton is very aware that sometimes, we just think too highly of ourselves, and in order to understand what he is trying to say, we need to get down of our horses and be humble and honest.

Hm... well, over the previous chapters we have seen how he rationalised with a perverted logic in order to isolate his mind from morals. But it looks like even then he still realizes that if he looks at Basil and really thinks about it, he may find himself horrified at his own actions and his own immorality, even when he thought he had cleared himself from those thoughts.

Why does Basil desperately turn to religion when looking for a chance to reconcile Dorian with himself?

What if there was no scarlet left on his lips, no blue left on his eyes, no youth left on his face? Would it not be Dorian anymore then? So if the painting had not been painted, would Dorian have ceased to be himself as he grew old?

The way these sentences are constructed seem to be hinting at a possibility for Dorian to redeem himself.

Think of how Dorian's sins are visually recorded in his painting. Wilde likes to have his characters hit the target unconsciously by saying these things, without really meaning them, unaware of the way they accurately describe what Dorian has tried to keep in secrecy.

Perhaps this is the way Dorian perceives his own conscience now. As something he has to be afraid of.

Although it sounds beautiful, complex and profound, it could also just hint at Dorian rationalising his hedonism, and charming himself with the complexity of his own mind, which in itself gives him some sense of nobility and purpose.

It is ironic that this purity is maintained by keeping the corruption elsewhere.

This sort of description is repeated throughout the book several times, and I think it is to highlight how this is something about Dorian that is crucial to himself but that only remains because he has the picture.

Were there so many differences between what Henry taught him and Basil?

But even though he appears to think that the corruption of his soul is only happening to the picture of himself, we, as an audience, and Basil, are becoming aware of the degradation of Dorian himself. By refusing to accept change, and deflecting it to his picture, has Dorian stopped being human, given that change is the only constant in human life?

Basil appears to be the only one aware of Dorian's changing morals and behaviour, as the only interest Henry appears to have in him is purely aesthetical as a subject of his psychological studies, and does not really appear to be aware of the damage that this is causing on Dorian as a person.

Coming back to Basil's words in chapter 2, I believe, when he said that he was immune to Henry's influence... given how tragically distressed Dorian is, one has to reconsider what Basil said much more seriously.

Dramatic irony.

His pain is exacerbated by Henry's dismissal of Sibyl, which is incredibly cruel, and perhaps Dorian now sees his own cruelty in Henry's.

He is rebelling against Henry's influence, just like Basil would have liked him to do... or would he? Maybe this is for the worst.

Isn't not knowing worse than knowing? After all, by not knowing, you will have to live with the doubt.

A beautiful foreshadowing of things to come.

The way he treated Sibyl was a "sin", then; one of vanity and rage.

This, along with his smile, depicts the darker side of Dorian we have not seen yet.

He wasn't in love with Sibyl, but with her art.

It seems as though Henry was referring to Basil (or himself...) and Doran, respectively, in this quote.

In comparison, Dorian's picture is depicted as the epitome of (Basil's) art!

It is simply amazing how this stereotype perdures still today. When Romeo and Juliet is mentioned in any cartoon or series, it is ALWAYS the scene of the balcony that is shown...!

It does seem as though Dorian and Sibyl have something in common.

He is consistently viewing Dorian as a subject of his psychological studies, but it seems to me that he is just rationalising his fascination for the young man. Perhaps he does not want to submit to his own desires after all.

Ironic. Basil's intentions with the portrait were the opposite - to immortalise yet-to-be influenced Dorian, not to influence him. But we saw this happening after Dorian saw the portrait for the first time two chapters ago.

Even after all those chapters talking about passion, beauty, and the red flame of youth, in the end, they judge his decision (which we can assume is based in 'love' or, rather, youthful and thoughtless passion) because of the social position of Sibyl. Hypocritical at least.

Perhaps this is why intellect and beauty fight each other, and this statement, which is implied to be Henry's point of view, gives further details to his reasoning.

Perhaps with this Wilde is criticising those in society who are too uptight about tradition and deeply resent those who contradict the common tenets of the English society. (For example, homosexuals.)

How can an artist be a Philistine? It is quite a scornful thing to say.

Yet again, decay is mentioned, a recurrent topic in the book.

Just like Dorian was unaware of his in the second chapter.

"As you once said", "it never would have happened if I had not met you", "you filled me with a wild desire"... Henry's influence on Dorian seems to be almost permanent or even exaggerated by now.

The "ubi sunt" theme is certainly all over this book.

The quote I chose for my Prelim! Although slightly different. The quote was "Critics know the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

Henry made some comments before about how women ruin their passions by trying to make them last forever. Perhaps his wife fuels his frustration towards the other gender.

I remember this opera quite well - it was the first opera I watched with my grandmother. It is about a couple of lovers in France, and Manon Lescaut is a woman who is about to be sent to a convent, yet she is desired by everyone around her because of her beauty. (See the connection with Dorian?) Basically, the rest of the story is about how Manon and Geronte flee to live on their own, end up in poverty, and Manon dies. The final aria, sung by Manon, is about how unfair her life had been and how sad it is that she was no longer as beautiful as she once was.

Notice the contrast: "the real Dorian" vs. "the original of the portrait." It seems very deliberate from Wilde's part.

Curious. What are books but words on paper? It is extremely worrying to see an artist talk about his art in this way.

I wonder if this is a foreshadowing rather than an innocent metaphor.

Is it true friendship, then, or was it just acquaintance?

This is rather a paradoxical sentence. Are words real at all? They are just sounds or symbols trying to represent objects from the real world, and, in some cases, abstract concepts we have developed in our minds...

Implying that Basil is jealous of the attention Dorian is giving to Henry's words... or that he is letting himself be influenced by Henry's complex-sounding philosophical arguments.

But is self-development possible at all without interacting with others? Any human interaction should result in an influence, to various degrees of depth - so maybe Wilde's concept of influence is a much deeper one than the one we usually attribute to the word.

Look at how quickly Dorian has become the center of the scene. He suddenly has the authority to let Henry stay in the studio - Basil's studio!

So the beauty does not reside in the piece of art itself, but on the subject that is being portrayed; art itself is but a mirror that attempts to reflect this beauty.

It is a pity that he saw himself as incapable of producing anything creative or original. But while the perception of a creator is understandable (that it is difficult to create something that does not share anything in common with the works of someone else), this is still no excuse not to try. It sounds like Byron gave up before even trying.

He did not believe that Byron's rhymes were without musicality, but rather, without soul. He saw his poems as empty works that did not convey any true emotions.

However that is very much a vague critique. It is up to the reader to perceive the 'thought' contained in a poem, just like it is up to the reader to perceive the complexity behind Joyce's Ulysses. Brougham was only after Byron's discrediting.

Is he openly admitting his promiscuity?

This man was really offended by Byron's excessive pride.

Somewhat stereotypical topic of women being mysterious to men yet object of their admiration.

Are there any second intentions to Byron's poem? Or is he just using her as an inspiration to write, and nothing else?

Known as Ada Lovelace, Byron's daughter was an absolute pioneer in the development of modern algorithms and other concepts in computer science. (I know that Ada's life does not pertain to our class, but I thought it is an interesting fact.)