I merely read chapter 1 of this book (78 pages, by the way), and I'm still annoyed. It was assigned because we are discussing British aestheticism and trying to delineate it in terms we can talk about. This chapter brought up important topics and characteristics of aestheticism but the means by which it does so are roundabout, abstract, and overcomplicated (it’s not hard to read, it takes too long to get to the point, and then you have to go back to figure out what he was saying in the first place) –and believe me, the irony is not lost on me: I get that he works within the modes of aestheticism to make his critique. I don’t like it. He is not Oscar Wilde. He is not Ruskin. He is not Pater. He is not, indeed, Henry James. Subverting his argument in separate arguments and explanations is annoying, why should I have to tease it out when he’s trying to convince me? Say it plainly or don’t say it at all, especially when you are not any of the above and do not command the respect of the above.
Needless to say, I did not enjoy this reading experience and I am not looking forward to the analyses I have to do in relation to it. If I dithered like this in a paper I’d get a terrible grade.