Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
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.
Ok this is a... strange book. It's meant to be so, of course. The way it's written - it's purposefully put together so that book clubs and literary critics everywhere could passionately debate and dissect characters and their motivations, as well as the narrative itself. I get it. Rich material, if your goal is to analyzr psychological motivations, for one, and the author's freedom of creation, for other. But frankly, it was simply quite boring to read. For all its clever construction, I just didn't find it compelling and had to actively convince myself to keep going. So good to have book clubs and their deadlines - true external motivation for reads such as this one :)
Disclaimer: I am not an expert of classics so feel free to disregard this.
For a book which is not particularly long, I'm amazed at how it dragged on. I appreciated the character development and the comment it made on Victorian society but I am certainly in no rush to pick it up again...ever.
For a book which is not particularly long, I'm amazed at how it dragged on. I appreciated the character development and the comment it made on Victorian society but I am certainly in no rush to pick it up again...ever.
challenging
emotional
reflective
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
3.5
I enjoyed this book a lot more than I thought I would and although I was interested in Charles' story, I think I enjoyed Fowles' interruptions a lot more. My favourite part in particular was when he was discussing the different cases of "hysterical" women.
I enjoyed this book a lot more than I thought I would and although I was interested in Charles' story, I think I enjoyed Fowles' interruptions a lot more. My favourite part in particular was when he was discussing the different cases of "hysterical" women.
Ernestina and Charles are engaged, and Ernestina reluctantly spent a few weeks with her aunt in Lyme Regis. Charles willingly went with her, and during their stay, he encounters Sarah, or "Tragedy", or the French Lieutenant's Woman. Sarah entrances him, and more chance encounters lead to an unburdening of Sarah's soul to Charles, which leads to more trouble.
This book is half story, half treatise on Victorian society, but in a very readable way. It was published in the 1960's, so it's Victorian with some tongue-in-cheek, not taking itself quite so seriously. Fowles takes us out of the narrative at times, reminding us that he's allowing the characters to choose their paths in his role as creator. Ultimately, I enjoyed this book far more than I expected to, and there was a little bit of a riveting quality to watching this love triangle unfold.
Food: ham and cheese sandwich. A little salty, a little meaty, nothing very high brow, but enough for a meal that can be consumed without taking too much time.
This book is half story, half treatise on Victorian society, but in a very readable way. It was published in the 1960's, so it's Victorian with some tongue-in-cheek, not taking itself quite so seriously. Fowles takes us out of the narrative at times, reminding us that he's allowing the characters to choose their paths in his role as creator. Ultimately, I enjoyed this book far more than I expected to, and there was a little bit of a riveting quality to watching this love triangle unfold.
Food: ham and cheese sandwich. A little salty, a little meaty, nothing very high brow, but enough for a meal that can be consumed without taking too much time.
I had to read this for my English Lit class, and it turned out to be such a pleasant surprise! I wasn't expecting too much from this book, but Fowles did such a good job at recreating the atmosphere at the characters of a typical Victorian novel, and I love how the narrator would sneak in at times to comment on 19th century's way of thinking and behaviour. It felt like I reading a Thomas Hardy's novel, and by reading this, you can clearly see that he was the main inspiration behind this story.
Idk how to feel about this book. I read it for my neo-Victorian class and it’s interesting to see a post-modern viewing of Victorian life but the way Fowler writes all the female characters rubs me the wrong way.
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes