Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
I thought , as I embarked on reading this book, that it would be a re-read for me. But I came to realize that I never actually read the book before. I probably just carried it around with me for a few years since I can still picture the cover. Perhaps I just read the "juicy bits' pointed out by my college roommate who had to study it for a class.
It does use an usual literary technique -- the author inserts himself into the story and actually messes around with the plot and the conclusion. I can see why a professor would want to teach it.
Though well done I will not recommend this one for book club and I doubt I'll tell any high school students to read it. So it will once again fade back into the recesses of my brain to be pondered occasionally alone.
It does use an usual literary technique -- the author inserts himself into the story and actually messes around with the plot and the conclusion. I can see why a professor would want to teach it.
Though well done I will not recommend this one for book club and I doubt I'll tell any high school students to read it. So it will once again fade back into the recesses of my brain to be pondered occasionally alone.
Three and a half stars for The French Lieutenant's Woman. The story, actually the plot, is outstandingly boring and unbelievable. A guy, ready to marry a perfect Victorian rich lady, falls for mysterious fallen woman. That's basically it, spread over 500 pages. Charles is a coward, Ernestina is a spoiled brat(but I still kinda liked, and felt sorry for her), and Sarah, even though a New Woman in the end, got on my nerves during the big part of the novel. What did she expect from a guy she only met several times, after what happened with lieutenant?!
Style is pretty good, I liked it probably because it is postmodernist with seemingly omniscient narrator who through his involvement ends up a character in the novel, Fowles has a great sense of humor(kinda reminded me of Dickens, with his blatant judgment of everything Victorian and sass and sarcasm).
Style is pretty good, I liked it probably because it is postmodernist with seemingly omniscient narrator who through his involvement ends up a character in the novel, Fowles has a great sense of humor(kinda reminded me of Dickens, with his blatant judgment of everything Victorian and sass and sarcasm).
This just in: Man Sees Vulnerable Woman Who Wants To Be Left Alone, Decides She's A Mystery And Stalks Her
The follow-up story: Man Decides Vulnerable Woman Must Be Eternally Grateful To Be Saved; Devastated When Finds Out She Has The Audacity To Be Fine Thank You.
The French Lieutenant's Woman was not my cup of tea. Half the time I had to hope that Fowles makes Charles have some stupid notions about women (and Jewish people for some reason) for the sake of authenticity, but still this didn't help the fact that I either despised him or found him incredibly pathetic. He even reminded me of Clyde Griffiths (American Tragedy) from time to time, and maybe his decision to break off the engagement was the only redeemable thing about him. Neither of the alternate endings seemed plausible to me. The story was almost saved by Sarah saying that she wouldn't marry neither man because they don't realise that what they think absurd is real to her, but that's about the only thing I liked about them. The breaking of the forth wall was fun at first, but grew tedious by the end of the story.
The follow-up story: Man Decides Vulnerable Woman Must Be Eternally Grateful To Be Saved; Devastated When Finds Out She Has The Audacity To Be Fine Thank You.
The French Lieutenant's Woman was not my cup of tea. Half the time I had to hope that Fowles makes Charles have some stupid notions about women (and Jewish people for some reason) for the sake of authenticity, but still this didn't help the fact that I either despised him or found him incredibly pathetic. He even reminded me of Clyde Griffiths (American Tragedy) from time to time, and maybe his decision to break off the engagement was the only redeemable thing about him. Neither of the alternate endings seemed plausible to me. The story was almost saved by Sarah saying that she wouldn't marry neither man because they don't realise that what they think absurd is real to her, but that's about the only thing I liked about them. The breaking of the forth wall was fun at first, but grew tedious by the end of the story.
Withh a title like "The French Lieutenant's Woman", you start the book hoping for a heart breaking romance about a french soldier's wife who is just learning to cope with the war. But no, instead, what you find is deceit from most of the characters: The French Lieutenant, Sarah. You also find philosophy, Marx and psychology. Fowles goes into your mind and answers the questions you never asked. Instead of a love story, you get this book which tries to analyse the world, existence of God (Fowles was an atheist and he incorporates his beliefs throughout the book as well) So at the end you end up with this book that is trying to understand the human nature. I dont actually know what you end up with eaxctly, but you end with something more than a romance novel.
Sarah has an addiction to solitude or to melancholy. Rather, she doesn't want to be accepted. Somehow she finds her peace not in waiting for the French Soldier, but in merely setting her eyes out to the horizon and allowing the people of Lyme to gossip about her in the most absurd ways. To say that Sarah is someone who belongs to a mental asylum would be a huge lie. It's just that she decides to go deceive people in a way the society doesn't agree to. If we look at Mrs. Poulteney, she is as much a deceiver as Sarah. She deceives herself, which is worst I think. She says she believes in God, but believes that the fact that she has that faith allows her to be automatically superior to everyone else. She doesn't even realise that she isn't the meaning of a true Christian, but rather she is the meaning of pretense. She takes Sarah in to show to people that she can have a Christian heart. Not very Christian, if you ask me.
I guess, Sarah knows herself. She knows of how and most importantly, she knows why she decides to deceive others. Althiugh I never quite understood her reason of deceiving Charles or her reason of lying about some things, I understand why she felt the need to constantly be alone. I understand her need of solitude. But what I don't understand is her addiction to make herself suffer. Her destructive need is what I don't understand. Maybe what Dr. Grogan said about her is true. She has this nature in her to deceive others, to simply break their lives apart. Maybe it really is a disease and she needed to get treated. Or maybe, she is so addicted to that sadness she puts herself through, that she doesn't want to give that up. Charles admits to her being mysterious and that is exactly what attracts him to her. It is that enigma around her that he wants to decipher somehow, or simply just be in the presence of it, but at no point does he say that he wants that mystery around her to fade. He accepts that mystery about her and maybe that is why Sarah felt it was okay to let him in and let him see her smile.
And then you have Charles who deceives himself as well. He believes that a lifee with Ernestina is the right choice for a part of the book, despite the fact that he knows that Ernestina would never understand him. He lives with the deception that maybe like can turn into love.
And even the servants decide to rebel. Sam deceives Charles.
Probably the only character in the book who decides to not be deceitful is Ernestina. She knows what she wants and she does what she has to to get it.
But the utter uniqueness of the book has to come from John Fowles himself. He lets us see in his head. He incorporates himself in the story, not pretending to be an omniscient narrator, but rather someone trying to understand those characters. But in the end though, I feel that even John Fowles didn't fully understand Sarah and Charles. Otherwise, why would he have felt the need to narrate the different endings he feels are possible. Is it because he doesn't really know wheher Charles will be filled with disgust when Sarah touches him and thus realise her deception? Or maybe its because even John Fowles can't know the depth of the love Charles has for Sarah. (I mean come on, 20 months waiting?)
I guess the beauty of the book lies in its mystery just like the beauty of Sarah lies in her mystery.
Sarah has an addiction to solitude or to melancholy. Rather, she doesn't want to be accepted. Somehow she finds her peace not in waiting for the French Soldier, but in merely setting her eyes out to the horizon and allowing the people of Lyme to gossip about her in the most absurd ways. To say that Sarah is someone who belongs to a mental asylum would be a huge lie. It's just that she decides to go deceive people in a way the society doesn't agree to. If we look at Mrs. Poulteney, she is as much a deceiver as Sarah. She deceives herself, which is worst I think. She says she believes in God, but believes that the fact that she has that faith allows her to be automatically superior to everyone else. She doesn't even realise that she isn't the meaning of a true Christian, but rather she is the meaning of pretense. She takes Sarah in to show to people that she can have a Christian heart. Not very Christian, if you ask me.
I guess, Sarah knows herself. She knows of how and most importantly, she knows why she decides to deceive others. Althiugh I never quite understood her reason of deceiving Charles or her reason of lying about some things, I understand why she felt the need to constantly be alone. I understand her need of solitude. But what I don't understand is her addiction to make herself suffer. Her destructive need is what I don't understand. Maybe what Dr. Grogan said about her is true. She has this nature in her to deceive others, to simply break their lives apart. Maybe it really is a disease and she needed to get treated. Or maybe, she is so addicted to that sadness she puts herself through, that she doesn't want to give that up. Charles admits to her being mysterious and that is exactly what attracts him to her. It is that enigma around her that he wants to decipher somehow, or simply just be in the presence of it, but at no point does he say that he wants that mystery around her to fade. He accepts that mystery about her and maybe that is why Sarah felt it was okay to let him in and let him see her smile.
And then you have Charles who deceives himself as well. He believes that a lifee with Ernestina is the right choice for a part of the book, despite the fact that he knows that Ernestina would never understand him. He lives with the deception that maybe like can turn into love.
And even the servants decide to rebel. Sam deceives Charles.
Probably the only character in the book who decides to not be deceitful is Ernestina. She knows what she wants and she does what she has to to get it.
But the utter uniqueness of the book has to come from John Fowles himself. He lets us see in his head. He incorporates himself in the story, not pretending to be an omniscient narrator, but rather someone trying to understand those characters. But in the end though, I feel that even John Fowles didn't fully understand Sarah and Charles. Otherwise, why would he have felt the need to narrate the different endings he feels are possible. Is it because he doesn't really know wheher Charles will be filled with disgust when Sarah touches him and thus realise her deception? Or maybe its because even John Fowles can't know the depth of the love Charles has for Sarah. (I mean come on, 20 months waiting?)
I guess the beauty of the book lies in its mystery just like the beauty of Sarah lies in her mystery.
I read this for a university module.
If not for my set reading I don't think I would have ever picked this book up. However, I am glad that I have now read it.
The plot went places I wasn't expecting and kept me guessing right until the last page. The writing and pace at times felt a little too clunky and slow. The characters also don't change a great deal and no one within this book makes themselves easy to like. I probably would never read this book again but I didn't have a terrible time reading it.
If not for my set reading I don't think I would have ever picked this book up. However, I am glad that I have now read it.
The plot went places I wasn't expecting and kept me guessing right until the last page. The writing and pace at times felt a little too clunky and slow. The characters also don't change a great deal and no one within this book makes themselves easy to like. I probably would never read this book again but I didn't have a terrible time reading it.
Utterly magnificent. One of the best novelizations of the ideas of Marx I have read.
informative
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
funny
reflective
relaxing
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Someone is still hung up on his hatred for the Victorian writing style, even 100 years later...