Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
International Collectors Library (1969), Edition: Reprint, Hardcover, 480 pages
Description
While in Lyme Regis to visit his fiancee, Ernestina Freeman, Charles Smithson, a 32-year-old paleontologist, becomes fascinated by the mysterious Sarah Woodruff. A fallen woman said to have been jilted by a French officer, Sarah is a pariah to the well-bred society that Charles and Ernestina are a part of. While searching for fossils in a wooded coastal area, Charles encounters Sarah alone, and his curiosity and pity for her soon evolve into other emotions. It is not clear who seduces whom, but when another opportunity presents itself, Charles embraces Sarah passionately. Shortly thereafter, Sarah disappears, having been dismissed from domestic employment by the tyrannical do-gooder Mrs. Poultenay. Charles finds her in a room in Exeter, where he declares and demonstrates his love. Inspired by his image of Sarah as a valiant rebel against Victorian conventions, Charles rejects the constricting, respectable life Ernestina represents for him. He breaks off their engagement and is harassed with legal action for breach of contract. Meanwhile, Sarah vanishes again, and Charles spends 20 months scouring the world for her, finally tracing her to the lodgings of Dante Gabriel Rossetti in London.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member MeditationesMartini
The usual metafictional elements and existential philosophy in Fowles' work are toned down in The French Lieutenant's Woman, to which the default critical reaction would probably (and seems to) be that it's more mature and integrated and well-realized and blahblah, as opposed to the vulgar formal
And then he doesn't really know how to end it and treats us to some structural hay-making therefrom, which is okay, but also it's like, he really doesn't know how to end it, and the final fudge and paean to freedom are sort of a less clean-lined version of the end of The Magus. But if you had to learn about the Victorian Era and were only allowed to read one book on it ever . . . for its facts and psychology, this wouldn't be the worst option.
Show More
experimentalism of his other works. But I dunno, I kind of miss the sensationalism of The Magus or the wormholes of Mantissa. What this book, as kind of a 19th-century dry run for A Maggot, has going for it in my opinion is two things in particular, both in support of the same end - Fowles' amazing powers of simulation, and the very old-fashioned realist way he goes about illuminating his characters' mental states and brain furniture as typical Victorian dudez (although he's postmodern about the upfront way he does it - artificially foregrounding the curtain the traditional novelist hides behind), one; and two and more, the wonderful, fantastic "Wikipedification" of the novel that he achieves, where notes and digressions give facts, supporting evidence, discuss situations in historical context, recall who else lived at site X and when, and generally give all the sort of infosurrounds that we (I) are increasingly going to the internet for as a standard part of reading. It's a paper text with its own (paper) hyperlinks, and that's pretty cool.And then he doesn't really know how to end it and treats us to some structural hay-making therefrom, which is okay, but also it's like, he really doesn't know how to end it, and the final fudge and paean to freedom are sort of a less clean-lined version of the end of The Magus. But if you had to learn about the Victorian Era and were only allowed to read one book on it ever . . . for its facts and psychology, this wouldn't be the worst option.
Show Less
LibraryThing member japaul22
I cannot decide whether I loved this book or was annoyed by it. Fowles wrote this Victorian era novel in the 1960s, but it never struck me as historical fiction. I guess it felt more like a writing exercise with really well thought out characters. Fowles inserts himself into the book, exploring his
I found this all interesting and annoying at the same time. I think it was even more annoying because the characters are so interesting and the plot so familiar (at the beginning at least) that I kind of wanted it to just be a straight ahead Victorian novel. I think it's kind of brilliant that Fowles was able to mesh these two things but it was also kind of jarring to read.
This is one of those books that I'll have to think about for awhile.
Show More
control or lack thereof over the characters, and comments on Victorian era psyche from the perspective of the 1960s. He also supplies 3 different endings to the book, never really saying which he feels is the right one. I found this all interesting and annoying at the same time. I think it was even more annoying because the characters are so interesting and the plot so familiar (at the beginning at least) that I kind of wanted it to just be a straight ahead Victorian novel. I think it's kind of brilliant that Fowles was able to mesh these two things but it was also kind of jarring to read.
This is one of those books that I'll have to think about for awhile.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Bookmarque
A very emotional novel. Simultaneously I wanted Charles to have a successful life, either with Ernestina or with Sarah, and wanted him to fall flat on his face for being the ignoramus he was. The early descriptions of Sarah’s downfall at the hands of a cruel and deceitful Frenchman are well
At first I wanted to believe Sarah was a wronged woman just trying to survive in the ghastly restrictive Victorian world. I wanted to believe that Charles loved her. Then when he’s presented with logical reasons to the contrary, I wanted him to take Dr. Grogan’s advice and quit her; the scheming wench. He should have let the conventions of the day protect him. In one ‘ending’ he does this and he and Ernestina marry and have a relatively successful (if not quite happy) life together. One breathes a sigh of relief at the bullet dodge. But then there is a lot more novel to get through and we’re immediately told that this might not be really what happens. I found Sam’s betrayal of Charles to be quite cruel despite Charles kind of deserving it.
The scene where Charles leaves Ernestina is the most gut-wrenching of them all. She is palpably in pain and believes that Charles could have made her a better person and in return she would give him the ultimate bridal gift; faith in himself. That nearly made me cry because she totally nailed it. Charles lacks self-esteem in all but the most superficial way. He is a man of his time; liberally educated, an amateur scientist, a doubter of religious dogma, a gentleman of sufficiently independent means and will almost surely inherit an estate from a bachelor uncle. He knows that Ernestina is beneath him socially, but thinks that marriage is something he should do and she will do as well as any; at least she has wealth as a bonus.
His perceived moral and social expectations drive most of his behavior. He wants to be normal, respected and liked. It’s only when he allows himself to become emotional about Sarah, do we see him act outside his catechism. Though even then he views himself as munificent savior as Sarah herself assigns him this role. He feels gallant and romantic envisioning her rescue and elevation to his social rank. In the final ending, she eschews this even after her deliberate turning of the knife in his wound. She maintains that she will never marry and prefers to live with their child as a purported widow, drawing on the kindness of her new benefactor. She denies she ever intended to be cruel and destroy his life, but she is unconvincing. Charles leaves this final vignette as a broken and defeated man. It’s not as satisfying as I thought it would be. I still harbor sympathy for fallible, old Charles and his delusions.
Because this is the longest ending, I think it’s the one Fowles most wanted the reader to accept. Some people were annoyed with this device and the other where Fowles editorializes the story along the way, commenting on differences between his modern era of 1969 and that of the story; 1867. I found it very interesting and diverting. Why should every storyteller tell his story in exactly the same way? The enigmatic quality to the solution adds to its overall worth and if it was done in a more straightforward way would surely leave a less seismic impression.
Show More
drawn, but somehow they ring false. Sarah is not as complimentary of her ex-lover as she might have been when describing her ensnarement and seduction. She keeps him below her, describing a rather uneducated man who was transparently false and manipulative. How on earth could a woman who was described as having the ability to at a glance discern the true character of anyone she meets fall for this character? Sarah explains when she tells Charles that she cannot reasonably hope to marry an equal, so therefore she must marry shame. How altruistic. Sarah’s daily life with the cruel, hypocritical and bigoted harpy Mrs. Poulteney makes us sympathetic all over again though and we think that indeed Sarah must be a bit mentally unstable after all.At first I wanted to believe Sarah was a wronged woman just trying to survive in the ghastly restrictive Victorian world. I wanted to believe that Charles loved her. Then when he’s presented with logical reasons to the contrary, I wanted him to take Dr. Grogan’s advice and quit her; the scheming wench. He should have let the conventions of the day protect him. In one ‘ending’ he does this and he and Ernestina marry and have a relatively successful (if not quite happy) life together. One breathes a sigh of relief at the bullet dodge. But then there is a lot more novel to get through and we’re immediately told that this might not be really what happens. I found Sam’s betrayal of Charles to be quite cruel despite Charles kind of deserving it.
The scene where Charles leaves Ernestina is the most gut-wrenching of them all. She is palpably in pain and believes that Charles could have made her a better person and in return she would give him the ultimate bridal gift; faith in himself. That nearly made me cry because she totally nailed it. Charles lacks self-esteem in all but the most superficial way. He is a man of his time; liberally educated, an amateur scientist, a doubter of religious dogma, a gentleman of sufficiently independent means and will almost surely inherit an estate from a bachelor uncle. He knows that Ernestina is beneath him socially, but thinks that marriage is something he should do and she will do as well as any; at least she has wealth as a bonus.
His perceived moral and social expectations drive most of his behavior. He wants to be normal, respected and liked. It’s only when he allows himself to become emotional about Sarah, do we see him act outside his catechism. Though even then he views himself as munificent savior as Sarah herself assigns him this role. He feels gallant and romantic envisioning her rescue and elevation to his social rank. In the final ending, she eschews this even after her deliberate turning of the knife in his wound. She maintains that she will never marry and prefers to live with their child as a purported widow, drawing on the kindness of her new benefactor. She denies she ever intended to be cruel and destroy his life, but she is unconvincing. Charles leaves this final vignette as a broken and defeated man. It’s not as satisfying as I thought it would be. I still harbor sympathy for fallible, old Charles and his delusions.
Because this is the longest ending, I think it’s the one Fowles most wanted the reader to accept. Some people were annoyed with this device and the other where Fowles editorializes the story along the way, commenting on differences between his modern era of 1969 and that of the story; 1867. I found it very interesting and diverting. Why should every storyteller tell his story in exactly the same way? The enigmatic quality to the solution adds to its overall worth and if it was done in a more straightforward way would surely leave a less seismic impression.
Show Less
LibraryThing member whitewavedarling
This is a fast and playful work, perfect for either fans of the Victorian novel or fans of the postmodern. Whether you find yourself loving Fowles for the style of this work or despising him for his skill at playing with expectations and style, you'll react to this book. For the longtime reader of
Show More
classics, the allusions here are a constant enrichment to the text, but even the reader who's so far unfamiliar with the texts Fowles plays into his novel will find the book entertaining. It might end up being frustrating for the reader who expects a set traditional novel, but I believe it's well worth the ride, and it's far more readable than many other experimental texts. In general, I can't recommend it highly enough to anyone who wants a beautifully written and engaging escape into literature. Show Less
LibraryThing member TheBentley
I enjoyed this book much more than I expected to. Not only is the Victorian drama a good one, but Fowles' take on "post-modernizing" it is deftly accomplished. His authorial voice is charming and interesting--even when it should feel pedantic--and I found myself looking forward to the next time
Show More
"the author" would appear. While many people have complained that the numerous anachronistic author asides take the reader "out of the story," I found just the opposite. For me, they were what anchored me to it. Be advised, this is not a typical Victorian romance. My response to that is, "Thank Goodness!" If you are the type of person, however, who relishes getting lost in a 19th Century setting, this is not the book for you. Show Less
LibraryThing member bookomaniac
If you like Thomas Hardy, this is a must-read! Set in southern England, around 1868, Fowles evokes the Victorian times and morals in a splendid way. As far as I know it even is one of the most handsome introductions to Victorianism. In the first place ofcourse, it is a love story, but with a bonus:
Show More
every now and then Fowles reminds the reader this story is not quite his invention. His characters, he claims, have a mind of there own, and he's as eager as we to see what happens. Now, all this is beautifully written and done, but... in the end Fowles presents 3 different endings, and with this I have a problem: the way he describes the second and the third one is done in such a provocative way, that I have difficulty to follow and believe it. Also, the character of Sarah and the motives for her deeds remain a mistery; I think Fowles ment her to be a precursor of radical feminism, but at that, I think he hasn't done a convincing job. Show Less
LibraryThing member SmithSJ01
I couldn’t establish if the author was actually the narrator. There is a point where the narrator describes himself and it matches the picture of the author hence my confusion. The novel is set in 1867 in Lyme Regis. If you are a reader of Victorian literature then you’ll understand the social
I had many ‘arguments’ with the narrator whilst I was reading as I didn’t like some of the styles. The reader is presented with a narrator that is telling us a story as he is writing it but when he comes to a certain point where a character might do something he precedes to tell the reader he doesn’t know what will happen as his character hasn’t grown yet, or later on in the novel he’ll say a character has developed and is making their own mind up about something. It was too contrived for me and made it easy to not have to fully develop the plot and characters.
Had I simply been reading a story about the characters of this novel written in the 1960s but set approximately 100 years earlier, it wouldn’t have been anything different so credit to John Fowles for trying to write something more unusual than the norm. I knew nothing of the plot when I read it but I think most people know something of the story and I don’t know if Sarah’s crime was handled in the right way or not. However, I did become caught up in the other character’s thoughts and opinions about Sarah, the French Lieutenant’s Woman as well as her own absorption in her reputation. I think I’ll read something else by him but only because it’s part of a list of books I’m reading through.
Show More
set ups and class systems but even though I have read novels of this time I still struggled with many aspects and this is down to the narrator.I had many ‘arguments’ with the narrator whilst I was reading as I didn’t like some of the styles. The reader is presented with a narrator that is telling us a story as he is writing it but when he comes to a certain point where a character might do something he precedes to tell the reader he doesn’t know what will happen as his character hasn’t grown yet, or later on in the novel he’ll say a character has developed and is making their own mind up about something. It was too contrived for me and made it easy to not have to fully develop the plot and characters.
Had I simply been reading a story about the characters of this novel written in the 1960s but set approximately 100 years earlier, it wouldn’t have been anything different so credit to John Fowles for trying to write something more unusual than the norm. I knew nothing of the plot when I read it but I think most people know something of the story and I don’t know if Sarah’s crime was handled in the right way or not. However, I did become caught up in the other character’s thoughts and opinions about Sarah, the French Lieutenant’s Woman as well as her own absorption in her reputation. I think I’ll read something else by him but only because it’s part of a list of books I’m reading through.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
On Goodreads five stars is for amazing, and this novel earns it, even if some aspects maddened me. I knew two things about this novel going in. One, it was pointed to me as one of the most masterful examples of the omniscient point of view written in the 20th century, which made me eager to read
Fowles does pull out all the stops in that omniscient point of view--it fits his Victorian setting, and his Victorian theme. The novel seems both homage to the era's novel and a critique of the age. Each chapter is headed with quotes about the Victorian age and by Victorian authors such as Darwin, Marx, Tennyson, Hardy, Arnold. There is plenty of commentary by the narrator about not just the characters and plots, but has the author breaking the fourth wall with statements in first person as author and on the process of writing. It's a technique that is labeled by many post-modern in its self-consciousness, but harkens back to Fielding and Thackeray; it's not just a 20th century thing--read Tom Jones and Vanity Fair some time. And Fowles knew his Victorians and his setting of Lyme Regis in Dorset, England. He wrote two books on Lyme where he spent decades and one on "Thomas Hardy's England." Fowles would interrupt the narrative to tell you one character lived to nearly a hundred and that another would be the ancestor of a noted contemporary actress. There are even footnotes! All in all that playfulness makes up for a lot--I even forgive Fowles his alternate endings. Plus, his style is just so beautiful, so readable. The man is a master storyteller that makes you want to quickly turn the pages to find out what happens and yet linger over the shapely sentences.
With the Magus it was the mysterious Godlike figure and his God Game that had me pulling my hair. What left me feeling almost exhausted trying to figure things out in this novel is its title heroine, Sarah Woodruff. Fowles at one point refers to her as his "protagonist" but it's really Charles Smithson who feels as if he's at the center of the novel. He, at least, I felt I had a handle on. But Sarah? All I can say is she's the most frustrating, inexplicable, maddening heroine I've read since Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead. For the life of me I can't figure her out. Although a friend who read and loved the book told me that's rather the point. I found the women in The Magus rather unreal too, and am not sure if Fowles just is making at root a feminist point about the unreality of the women men construct in their mind, or just doesn't get women. (Although Ernestine Freeman and other minor female characters did feel more real.) At the very least, Sarah does leave a reader with something to chew on.
Show More
it, and second, that it had alternate endings, which put me off. (A device I hate, hate, hate--it seems such a cheat.) Actually, having before this read Fowles' The Magus, I could add I knew he had a masterful, enviable prose style, and that he loved messing with the reader--and that's on display here.Fowles does pull out all the stops in that omniscient point of view--it fits his Victorian setting, and his Victorian theme. The novel seems both homage to the era's novel and a critique of the age. Each chapter is headed with quotes about the Victorian age and by Victorian authors such as Darwin, Marx, Tennyson, Hardy, Arnold. There is plenty of commentary by the narrator about not just the characters and plots, but has the author breaking the fourth wall with statements in first person as author and on the process of writing. It's a technique that is labeled by many post-modern in its self-consciousness, but harkens back to Fielding and Thackeray; it's not just a 20th century thing--read Tom Jones and Vanity Fair some time. And Fowles knew his Victorians and his setting of Lyme Regis in Dorset, England. He wrote two books on Lyme where he spent decades and one on "Thomas Hardy's England." Fowles would interrupt the narrative to tell you one character lived to nearly a hundred and that another would be the ancestor of a noted contemporary actress. There are even footnotes! All in all that playfulness makes up for a lot--I even forgive Fowles his alternate endings. Plus, his style is just so beautiful, so readable. The man is a master storyteller that makes you want to quickly turn the pages to find out what happens and yet linger over the shapely sentences.
With the Magus it was the mysterious Godlike figure and his God Game that had me pulling my hair. What left me feeling almost exhausted trying to figure things out in this novel is its title heroine, Sarah Woodruff. Fowles at one point refers to her as his "protagonist" but it's really Charles Smithson who feels as if he's at the center of the novel. He, at least, I felt I had a handle on. But Sarah? All I can say is she's the most frustrating, inexplicable, maddening heroine I've read since Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead. For the life of me I can't figure her out. Although a friend who read and loved the book told me that's rather the point. I found the women in The Magus rather unreal too, and am not sure if Fowles just is making at root a feminist point about the unreality of the women men construct in their mind, or just doesn't get women. (Although Ernestine Freeman and other minor female characters did feel more real.) At the very least, Sarah does leave a reader with something to chew on.
Show Less
LibraryThing member EddieBennett
Boring author went off on too many tangents
LibraryThing member annbury
What a delicious book! Fowles' faux-Victorian novel works as a story, works as an exploration of Victorian life and literature, and works as a meditation on the nature of fiction. It's a compulsive read -- the author may remind us quite frequently that this is just a story, but the story still kept
The story traces the growing passion of the at first conventional Charles for the mysterious Sarah Woodruff, a.k.a. the French Lieutenant's Woman (or Whore). This runs right into his engagement to sweet and shallow (and rich) Ernestina, and eventually into his entire vision of life. Various interesting minor and not-so-minor characters abound, giving the same sense that one has in a "real" Victorian novel -- of a fully populated world, full of people who are interesting for their own sakes, as well as active in the plot. I was reminded of Eliot, Dickens, and so forth (and, more frivolously, of Caryl Brahms' 1940 pastische, "Don't, Mr. Disraeli").
I can't recommend this book too highly. I look forward to rereading it -- not something I commit to very often, these days -- and to taking the time to savor the many delights it offers. In the meantime, I will watch the movie.
Show More
me turning the pages, and I didn't mind a bit when he went all post-modern at the end. It's also a very enjoyable read, with sparkling minor characters, enlightening looks at Victorian mores and fiction, and witty apercus scattered like confetti.The story traces the growing passion of the at first conventional Charles for the mysterious Sarah Woodruff, a.k.a. the French Lieutenant's Woman (or Whore). This runs right into his engagement to sweet and shallow (and rich) Ernestina, and eventually into his entire vision of life. Various interesting minor and not-so-minor characters abound, giving the same sense that one has in a "real" Victorian novel -- of a fully populated world, full of people who are interesting for their own sakes, as well as active in the plot. I was reminded of Eliot, Dickens, and so forth (and, more frivolously, of Caryl Brahms' 1940 pastische, "Don't, Mr. Disraeli").
I can't recommend this book too highly. I look forward to rereading it -- not something I commit to very often, these days -- and to taking the time to savor the many delights it offers. In the meantime, I will watch the movie.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jpsnow
I just finished "The French Lieutenant's Woman." It's not a page turner, but John Fowles weaves his words in a most interesting way. Into a rather traditional romance, he adds historical excerpts, philosophy, science, and even himself in a few places. His approach results in a stronger story and a
Show More
richer message about the potential triumph of individual choice over cultural constraints. I struggle to recall how this came to be on my "to read" list. Is it - written in 1969 - already a classic? I'm sure it appeared as a possible choice in high school lit, but it now seems very modern against even Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Of course, no self-respecting teenage boy would select such a title over Beowulf or Heart of Darkness, but it's a worthy consideration because it addresses the confusion of self in relationships, and the clash between duty and choice. Show Less
LibraryThing member littlebookworm
I don't know I feel about this work. Strange to write a review and say that. I disliked the ending - it didn't have the connection that I wanted, and I hated Fowles's false ending. Yet something about it lingers in my consciousness, insisting on a rethink, a reevaluation, some sort of beauty that
I would have read it for the Victorian commentary if nothing else, though. I loved that.
Show More
can't be explained just by such a thing as "plot". Perhaps this makes sense to no one but me.I would have read it for the Victorian commentary if nothing else, though. I loved that.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Miguelnunonave
A beautiful book, a story within a story, incredible paralells between the Victorian and contemporary timelines, an aura of gothic mystery, sublime landscapes of lovely southwest England... Kind of a spoiler that I saw the film first, hence kept picturing Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons...
LibraryThing member veevoxvoom
Summary: A metafictional historical novel about a cast of characters in Victorian England. Charles is a typical Victorian gentlemen engaged to a typical Victorian lady, but then he meets Sarah Woodruff, an enigmatic and tragic woman with a blurry past, and he is drawn to her in ways that he does
Review: A rich, enchanting work that functions on multiple levels. On one level there is the basic story of Charles and Sarah, their unavoidable passion for each other, and the complications that brings to Charles’ engagement to the traditionally feminine Ernestina. On the other level The French Lieutenant’s Woman is also a reflection on Victorianism and the values of that age, especially Victorianism as it contrasts against modernism. Fowles is particularly concerned with that fine edge, that sense of fin de siecle.
Fowles also writes a lot about the nature of writing itself, and the capacities of fiction. The metafictional aspect of the novel comes from his narrator’s constant interjections about the characters’ motives and decisions. It’s a self-reflexive novel in that it draws attention to the art of writing a novel, as well as the characters’ own life beyond that of the writer’s intentions.
With all that said, The French Lieutenant’s Woman seems like it would run the risk of being dry and boring, pseudo-intellectual with no entertainment. That’s far from true. Fowles writes in a lively manner that kept me interested even when he talked about things that didn’t interest me.
Conclusion: I can see why it’s so popular. One of those novels that’s hard to define because it doesn’t seem like it should be good, but it is.
Show More
not understand.Review: A rich, enchanting work that functions on multiple levels. On one level there is the basic story of Charles and Sarah, their unavoidable passion for each other, and the complications that brings to Charles’ engagement to the traditionally feminine Ernestina. On the other level The French Lieutenant’s Woman is also a reflection on Victorianism and the values of that age, especially Victorianism as it contrasts against modernism. Fowles is particularly concerned with that fine edge, that sense of fin de siecle.
Fowles also writes a lot about the nature of writing itself, and the capacities of fiction. The metafictional aspect of the novel comes from his narrator’s constant interjections about the characters’ motives and decisions. It’s a self-reflexive novel in that it draws attention to the art of writing a novel, as well as the characters’ own life beyond that of the writer’s intentions.
With all that said, The French Lieutenant’s Woman seems like it would run the risk of being dry and boring, pseudo-intellectual with no entertainment. That’s far from true. Fowles writes in a lively manner that kept me interested even when he talked about things that didn’t interest me.
Conclusion: I can see why it’s so popular. One of those novels that’s hard to define because it doesn’t seem like it should be good, but it is.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AdonisGuilfoyle
Well, that was an experience! Informative and occasionally amusing, yet more of a Brysonesque summary of the Victorians than a novel. The tangled emotions of Charles and Sarah were brought to life by Fowles, but my knowledge and interest in the characters was more of a study than the more personal
The author's wry asides on his fictional yet historically accurate setting stood out more than the story. He passes comment on reading ('Thus it had come about that she read far more fiction, and far more poetry, those two sanctuaries of the lonely, than most of her kind. They served as a substitute for experience') and the art of writing (the soul-destroying chapter thirteen), on civic destruction, the middle class (which 'sincerely and habitually despises itself') and the Victorians - oh, the Victorians! 'What are we faced with in the nineteenth century? An age where ... there was an enormous progress and liberation in every other field of human activity; and nothing but tyranny in the most personal and fundamental'. Sarah, the eponymous character, either encapsulates that double standard, or manages to break free. She is either a 'doubly dishonoured' woman who commits social suicide, or a crafty young woman of 'superior intelligence and some education' who has a 'professional line in the way of looking melancholy'. I'm still not sure if Sarah is brave or bonkers, but she's still better than Charles!
Compared to that other famous novel set in Lyme Regis, I enjoyed The French Lieutenant's Woman, which I had previously only known via the film with Meryl 'The Actress' Streep and Jeremy Irons, but the ending was disappointing and the smug narrator rather overplays his hand after a while.
Show More
connection I usually seek from the books I read. I didn't like or dislike any of them, just thought them 'typical' (and enjoyed how Fowles described them, like Mrs Poulteney, the 'stuffed Pekinese').The author's wry asides on his fictional yet historically accurate setting stood out more than the story. He passes comment on reading ('Thus it had come about that she read far more fiction, and far more poetry, those two sanctuaries of the lonely, than most of her kind. They served as a substitute for experience') and the art of writing (the soul-destroying chapter thirteen), on civic destruction, the middle class (which 'sincerely and habitually despises itself') and the Victorians - oh, the Victorians! 'What are we faced with in the nineteenth century? An age where ... there was an enormous progress and liberation in every other field of human activity; and nothing but tyranny in the most personal and fundamental'. Sarah, the eponymous character, either encapsulates that double standard, or manages to break free. She is either a 'doubly dishonoured' woman who commits social suicide, or a crafty young woman of 'superior intelligence and some education' who has a 'professional line in the way of looking melancholy'. I'm still not sure if Sarah is brave or bonkers, but she's still better than Charles!
Compared to that other famous novel set in Lyme Regis, I enjoyed The French Lieutenant's Woman, which I had previously only known via the film with Meryl 'The Actress' Streep and Jeremy Irons, but the ending was disappointing and the smug narrator rather overplays his hand after a while.
Show Less
LibraryThing member 50MinuteMermaid
First time (at least, self-aware first time) with an explicitly unreliable and downright ornery narrator. Talk about a mindf*ck -- I remember getting to the point where the chronology got messed up, where the relationship with Sarah turns out not to be what it was all Victorian-ishly cracked up to
Show More
be, and where Mr. Fowles himself appears, leaning on a tree outside someone's brownstone. I really think that must have been the moment when I realized just how paradoxically necessary and yet unnecessary "Rules" were in writing. It was such a trip; and since that literally was one of the most exciting moments in my life, I think I must be a huge nerd. Show Less
LibraryThing member sblock
Gorgeous writing, compelling tale of Victorian repression, but still not sure how I feel about the author's periodic reminders that this is a novel and he controls the strings. I guess it seemed a little forced. And I'm still trying to figure out just what he was trying to say. That real life is
Show More
more complicated than fiction? I guess my conclusion is that I loved this book more for its parts than its sum. Show Less
LibraryThing member PilgrimJess
“We all write poems; it is simply that poets are the ones who write in words.”
This book on the face of it, reads like a Victorian Gothic love story yet it was written in the 1960's and is a kind of ironic homage to that genre. Fowles uses many of the traditions and conventions of a Victorian
The subject of this novel is essentially the isolation resulting from an individual's struggle for self-hood and despite the title the central figure is not Sarah Woodruff ( The French Lieutenant's Woman or Tragedy as she is more commonly known) but Charles Smithson, a 32 year old bachelor of independent means from an aristocratic family who is engaged to marry Ernestina, the daughter of a wealthy self-made man who is in 'trade' and who would bring a large dowry to any marriage.
Charles' attitudes toward Sarah and Ernestina are very different and are revealed in the way he talks to them. He feels stiff and uncomfortable with Sarah because she won't accept the way in which he categorizes the world, including his view of her because he does not know who he really. He is a Gentleman but also appears rudderless looking for a direction in a changing world. In contrast Sarah is fully aware of herself as an individual who refuses to be defined by conventional roles. However, However Charles changes with Ernestina, with whom he is indulgent and paternal whilst with his servant Sam, he is patronizing. Here he feels comfortable in his role in society. Sarah's honesty, confuses and beguiles him in equal measure. Therefore Charles must travel from ignorance to understanding whereas Sarah and Ernestina alter very little. The knowledge he arrives at is bitter,
Fowles in particular, is concerned with Victorian attitudes towards women and economics. He highlights the problems of two socially and economically oppressed groups in nineteenth-century England: the poverty of the working and servant classes, and the economic and social entrapment of women. While the plot traces what seems to be a love story, the reader questions what sort of love existed in a society where many marriages were based as much on economics as on love. I won't give the ending away other than to say that this is not a traditional love story. The novel is actually a psychological study of an individual rather than a romance.
Now whilst I ended up enjoying this more than I initially expected to enjoying Fowles writing style I fear that I found it lacking for unlike Victorian authors like Dickens or Wilkie Collins this novel was delivered whole as opposed to monthly. Therefore it at times lacked that real spark that almost compelled you to read a little more. This was particularly true when he switched to the first person voice. That said and done I can see why this is regarded as a Modern classic and while it appears on the '1001 Before I Die' list.
This book on the face of it, reads like a Victorian Gothic love story yet it was written in the 1960's and is a kind of ironic homage to that genre. Fowles uses many of the traditions and conventions of a Victorian
Show More
novel,in particular being careful how he details the scene and using dialogue to reveal the characters true personality, yet all the time is telling the reader that he is doing so, thus mixing two divergent writing styles.The subject of this novel is essentially the isolation resulting from an individual's struggle for self-hood and despite the title the central figure is not Sarah Woodruff ( The French Lieutenant's Woman or Tragedy as she is more commonly known) but Charles Smithson, a 32 year old bachelor of independent means from an aristocratic family who is engaged to marry Ernestina, the daughter of a wealthy self-made man who is in 'trade' and who would bring a large dowry to any marriage.
Charles' attitudes toward Sarah and Ernestina are very different and are revealed in the way he talks to them. He feels stiff and uncomfortable with Sarah because she won't accept the way in which he categorizes the world, including his view of her because he does not know who he really. He is a Gentleman but also appears rudderless looking for a direction in a changing world. In contrast Sarah is fully aware of herself as an individual who refuses to be defined by conventional roles. However, However Charles changes with Ernestina, with whom he is indulgent and paternal whilst with his servant Sam, he is patronizing. Here he feels comfortable in his role in society. Sarah's honesty, confuses and beguiles him in equal measure. Therefore Charles must travel from ignorance to understanding whereas Sarah and Ernestina alter very little. The knowledge he arrives at is bitter,
Fowles in particular, is concerned with Victorian attitudes towards women and economics. He highlights the problems of two socially and economically oppressed groups in nineteenth-century England: the poverty of the working and servant classes, and the economic and social entrapment of women. While the plot traces what seems to be a love story, the reader questions what sort of love existed in a society where many marriages were based as much on economics as on love. I won't give the ending away other than to say that this is not a traditional love story. The novel is actually a psychological study of an individual rather than a romance.
Now whilst I ended up enjoying this more than I initially expected to enjoying Fowles writing style I fear that I found it lacking for unlike Victorian authors like Dickens or Wilkie Collins this novel was delivered whole as opposed to monthly. Therefore it at times lacked that real spark that almost compelled you to read a little more. This was particularly true when he switched to the first person voice. That said and done I can see why this is regarded as a Modern classic and while it appears on the '1001 Before I Die' list.
Show Less
LibraryThing member techeditor
It’s the 1860s. An English couple, Ernestina and Charles, walk together along a beach. He is a member of the aristocracy; she is spoiled and rich. They see from afar a mysterious woman standing still, staring out to sea. Ernestina tells Charles that the woman is variously called “the French
The mysterious woman, Sarah, will keep you guessing throughout, right to the very end. You’ll think she’s pitiful, then you’ll wonder if she’s crazy, then you think she may be mean, and round and round.
THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN by John Fowles, written in 1969, is a Victorian-sounding novel. Fowles mimics the style of, maybe, Jane Austen or maybe Charles Dickens. At the same time, he interjects his own voice and compares the Victorian age with modern (1969) times.
This book is, although long, not long enough. When you read it, get very comfortable; you won’t want to put it down. And you’ll hate to see it end.
Show More
lieutenant’s whore” and “Tragedy”; she had an affair with a French lieutenant who went home and was never heard from again. Charles becomes curious.The mysterious woman, Sarah, will keep you guessing throughout, right to the very end. You’ll think she’s pitiful, then you’ll wonder if she’s crazy, then you think she may be mean, and round and round.
THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN by John Fowles, written in 1969, is a Victorian-sounding novel. Fowles mimics the style of, maybe, Jane Austen or maybe Charles Dickens. At the same time, he interjects his own voice and compares the Victorian age with modern (1969) times.
This book is, although long, not long enough. When you read it, get very comfortable; you won’t want to put it down. And you’ll hate to see it end.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TheAmpersand
An excellent book all the way around. Fowles succeeds as a stylist both in his novel's "fictoin" sections, which are a pitch-perfect recreation of nineteenth century prose and its "non-fiction" sections, which are lucid, warm, and occasionally witty. The novel is well-constructed, effectively
Still, I can't say I loved this book, but that's because "The French Lieutenant's Woman," like so many stories of star-crossed Victorian love, is more or less suffused with a sense of impending doom from the very first page. You know these characters will make poor decisions, and, since Fowles makes sure you know the brutal constraints of the society in which they live, you know they'll pay dearly for them. Reading through the end of the novel, then, is not unlike watching trapped insects wiggle helplessly under the beam of a gigantic magnifying glass until they expire. I got the same sensation reading "Jude the Obscure," and, truth be told, I didn't enjoy it much then, either. Even so, I'll recommend this one to any reader out there.
Show More
showing how Victorian morality and a harshly divided economic system hamstrung many of the people unlucky enough to live unconventional lives. Fowles research for this book was meticulous to a fault, and I learned a great deal about a typical Victorian's ideas about science, God, geography and love by reading this novel. Lastly, this novel succeeds as a po-mo experiment, bringing the unspoken assumptions that form the background of every Victorian novel you've ever read to the foreground. It's a testament to Fowles skill as a writer that this novel's characters come off as people rather than constructs, even when Fowles presents them to his readers as literary inventions. The novel is full of scenes of great emotional power and tenderness, and even readers completely uninterested in Fowles writerly experiments will likely enjoy this book's romantic elements. Still, I can't say I loved this book, but that's because "The French Lieutenant's Woman," like so many stories of star-crossed Victorian love, is more or less suffused with a sense of impending doom from the very first page. You know these characters will make poor decisions, and, since Fowles makes sure you know the brutal constraints of the society in which they live, you know they'll pay dearly for them. Reading through the end of the novel, then, is not unlike watching trapped insects wiggle helplessly under the beam of a gigantic magnifying glass until they expire. I got the same sensation reading "Jude the Obscure," and, truth be told, I didn't enjoy it much then, either. Even so, I'll recommend this one to any reader out there.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Ysabeau
I just reread this after a twenty year gap. I had forgotten how fantastic it is. Multi-layered, complex, and yet still entertaining. A great post modern gothic. (It's much better than that sounds!)
LibraryThing member judye
Still wonderful all these years later. I originally read this when it was published and have reread it to teach postmodernism. I now understand the style better but it's a great take on the Victorian novel.
LibraryThing member nfenster
This book is so well-written that during one romantic passage, I nearly jumped off my chair. Magnificent.
LibraryThing member BrianDewey
Fowles, John. The French Lieutenant's Woman. Back Bay Books, Boston, 1969. I bought this book at the state IE tournament at the University of Puget Sound. I put it in my bag and promptly forgot about it. I'm sure glad I found it and read it! This is a compelling book on three levels. First, and
Show More
most basic, Fowles has created great characters and a compelling story. Second, he weaves in fascinating commentary on life in the Victorian era; it's a great work of historical fiction. And finally, the experimentation with storytelling is mind-blowing, right up there with some of the best of Tim O'Brien ("How to tell a true war story"). The alternate endings, the explicit interjection of the author into the story; all of these work to make the deeper meaning of the book that much more captivating. This book will definitely be worth re-reading in the future. Show Less
LibraryThing member shieldsk2
This has a story within a story, which is always one of my favorite elements. Incredibly rich and flavorful.
Subjects
Awards
WH Smith Literary Award (Winner — 1970)
Notable Books List (1969)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1969
Physical description
480 p.; 8.3 inches