You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
starsal 's review for:
The French Lieutenant's Woman
by John Fowles
This book (and this author) came extremely highly recommended. And, for the most part, they lived up to their reputation. [b:The French Lieutenant's Woman|56034|The French Lieutenant's Woman (Vintage Classics)|John Fowles|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266770678s/56034.jpg|1816464] is well-written and engaging. Some people here have complained that they didn't like Fowles's "intrusions" into the story, but I actually enjoyed that aspect very much. The story was good, and the characters were (for the most part) well-drawn and believable. The plot and pacing were lovely, and I loved the ending
My only quibble comes, I think, along with the expectations. I had heard this was a good, feminist, book because of the way it handles its female characters. I found that not to be completely true. Perhaps I heard wrong, or expected too much, but the male characters in the book were much more sympathetic and well-drawn than the female ones. While there are a couple (or at least one) unequivocally good male character, there are no female characters unalloyed by foolishness, shrewishness, shallowness, or cupidity.
Also, there was one extremely odd passage having to do with lesbianism, that went out of its way to explain that no one even thought about it in the Victorian era. The passage, and the idea, struck me as not only false, but tellingly so. Someone who could write that either isn't comfortable with the idea of homosexuality as an inborn trait (as is borne out by the scientific literature) or merely isn't comfortable with the idea of women not needing men at all. Perhaps neither of these is true and it's just a clumsily written section, but it struck a discordant note for me that I couldn't quite forgive.
However, even that discordance aside, I very much enjoyed reading the book and plan to read his others.
My only quibble comes, I think, along with the expectations. I had heard this was a good, feminist, book because of the way it handles its female characters. I found that not to be completely true. Perhaps I heard wrong, or expected too much, but the male characters in the book were much more sympathetic and well-drawn than the female ones. While there are a couple (or at least one) unequivocally good male character, there are no female characters unalloyed by foolishness, shrewishness, shallowness, or cupidity.
Also, there was one extremely odd passage having to do with lesbianism, that went out of its way to explain that no one even thought about it in the Victorian era. The passage, and the idea, struck me as not only false, but tellingly so. Someone who could write that either isn't comfortable with the idea of homosexuality as an inborn trait (as is borne out by the scientific literature) or merely isn't comfortable with the idea of women not needing men at all. Perhaps neither of these is true and it's just a clumsily written section, but it struck a discordant note for me that I couldn't quite forgive.
However, even that discordance aside, I very much enjoyed reading the book and plan to read his others.