Take a photo of a barcode or cover
anneliesb 's review for:
The French Lieutenant's Woman
by John Fowles
I love this stuff, I like conventions, but I like playing around with them even more!
The French Lieutenant’s Woman has everything to be a Victorian novel, romance, intrigue, forbidden love, villains (Mrs Poultenay, Mrs Failey), lower class observers (Sam, Mary),…, but at the same time it is everything but a Victorian novel. In including all these typical elements Fowles has produced something that is more like a caricature of the Victorian novel or a twentieth century comment on it. The narrator constantly links the 19th century to the 20th; Mary’s descendent is now an actress, the narrator buys a jug Sarah has owned, we now know that arsenic paint is poisonous.
Another 20th century element is the use of existentialism, the idea that every person is solely responsible for his or her life, that there is no God/faith to blame. We are always confronted with the necessity of making choices of which we are unable to predict the outcome. There is no right or wrong choice, because we cannot look into the future. Sarah makes some very bold choices for her own life and makes Charles realize that he has the same power and responsibility, doing what is expected is a choice.
Metafiction is another prominent feature of the novel. The reader is never allowed to get into the story as into a different world, one is constantly reminded of the fact that we’re not in the 19th century, these characters are created, the novel didn’t just come into being, but it was a work of labour on the writer’s side. As we see on p.21 “I write…”, p.95 “all imagination”, p.406 where attention is brought to the choices of the author. At the same time the author lets us to believe that he is just an observer and has no control over the characters as on p. 253 or on p. 329 where the narrator doesn’t know what is in the note Charles writes. Is this contradictory or are the author and the narrator two different entities?
One of the more remarkable features of The French Lieutenant’s Woman is the dual (or triple?) ending. It brings together the ideas of metafiction and existentialism. We are presented with a choice and are reminded of the fact that an author constantly faces choices in creating a novel. In choosing an ending the reader can actively participate in the creation of the novel. But, as a reader you also have the freedom not to make that choice, the author definitely has taken that liberty, the burden is on the reader. When looking at articles on The French Lieutenant’s Woman one sees that a lot of critics write about the ‘problem’ of the dual ending. But is it really problematic or is it just an exercise? Maybe there is no right or wrong choice.
Further noteworthy themes are ‘outsiders’ and ‘sexuality’. A lot of the characters seem to be outsiders. Obviously Sarah, born into working class but educated out of it, she doesn’t belong and exploits her Tragedy-story to consolidate her position. Charles would be introduced into the world of trade by marriage to Ernestina, so no matter which woman he follows he goes into unknown territory. Ernestina is about to marry into nobility where she will always be an outsider, she has the shine of money but the stain of trade.
Charles, poor fellow, is not only the dupe by being confronted with the ‘terrible freedom’ of existentialism; he is also emasculated by Sarah. He is very occupied with his ‘tests’, which sounds a lot like ‘testes’, then Sarah hands him two of the finest he had ever seen. In other words; she has him by the balls. Later on she defoliates milkwort looking like cherub’s genitals in his presence. A bit further on Charles sees Sarah as a door and he has no key, the classic image of the lock and the (lack of) key and associated impotence. In the end the whole Sarah-business results in Charles being literally no longer a ‘gentleman’.
The French Lieutenant’s Woman has everything to be a Victorian novel, romance, intrigue, forbidden love, villains (Mrs Poultenay, Mrs Failey), lower class observers (Sam, Mary),…, but at the same time it is everything but a Victorian novel. In including all these typical elements Fowles has produced something that is more like a caricature of the Victorian novel or a twentieth century comment on it. The narrator constantly links the 19th century to the 20th; Mary’s descendent is now an actress, the narrator buys a jug Sarah has owned, we now know that arsenic paint is poisonous.
Another 20th century element is the use of existentialism, the idea that every person is solely responsible for his or her life, that there is no God/faith to blame. We are always confronted with the necessity of making choices of which we are unable to predict the outcome. There is no right or wrong choice, because we cannot look into the future. Sarah makes some very bold choices for her own life and makes Charles realize that he has the same power and responsibility, doing what is expected is a choice.
Metafiction is another prominent feature of the novel. The reader is never allowed to get into the story as into a different world, one is constantly reminded of the fact that we’re not in the 19th century, these characters are created, the novel didn’t just come into being, but it was a work of labour on the writer’s side. As we see on p.21 “I write…”, p.95 “all imagination”, p.406 where attention is brought to the choices of the author. At the same time the author lets us to believe that he is just an observer and has no control over the characters as on p. 253 or on p. 329 where the narrator doesn’t know what is in the note Charles writes. Is this contradictory or are the author and the narrator two different entities?
One of the more remarkable features of The French Lieutenant’s Woman is the dual (or triple?) ending. It brings together the ideas of metafiction and existentialism. We are presented with a choice and are reminded of the fact that an author constantly faces choices in creating a novel. In choosing an ending the reader can actively participate in the creation of the novel. But, as a reader you also have the freedom not to make that choice, the author definitely has taken that liberty, the burden is on the reader. When looking at articles on The French Lieutenant’s Woman one sees that a lot of critics write about the ‘problem’ of the dual ending. But is it really problematic or is it just an exercise? Maybe there is no right or wrong choice.
Further noteworthy themes are ‘outsiders’ and ‘sexuality’. A lot of the characters seem to be outsiders. Obviously Sarah, born into working class but educated out of it, she doesn’t belong and exploits her Tragedy-story to consolidate her position. Charles would be introduced into the world of trade by marriage to Ernestina, so no matter which woman he follows he goes into unknown territory. Ernestina is about to marry into nobility where she will always be an outsider, she has the shine of money but the stain of trade.
Charles, poor fellow, is not only the dupe by being confronted with the ‘terrible freedom’ of existentialism; he is also emasculated by Sarah. He is very occupied with his ‘tests’, which sounds a lot like ‘testes’, then Sarah hands him two of the finest he had ever seen. In other words; she has him by the balls. Later on she defoliates milkwort looking like cherub’s genitals in his presence. A bit further on Charles sees Sarah as a door and he has no key, the classic image of the lock and the (lack of) key and associated impotence. In the end the whole Sarah-business results in Charles being literally no longer a ‘gentleman’.