Rating: 
Summary: As clearly a masterpiece today as when it was published
Review: John Fowles' "The French Lieutenant's Woman" is not only a masterpiece, it's an UNUSUAL masterpiece. Fowles takes the story of a mysterious, stubborn woman who clings almost proudly to her shame much in the same way that Hester Prynne does in "The Scarlet Letter"--yet it turns out that there is, after all, no actual reason for shame. But to Sarah Woodruff, the woman in question, shame equals freedom: freedom from constraints both social and emotional.Sarah Woodruff is as full-blooded and full-bodied a literary invention as any character of the 20th century canon, yet she retains a sense of mystery which is absolutely essential. It is for this sense she projects of being impossible to know that she becomes impossibly alluring to Charles Smithson, a wealthy, not-bad-looking, touchingly innocent gentleman who thinks of himself as a man of the world. The action of the book is propelled forward by the attraction Sarah holds for Charles, especially as it is forbidden (he is engaged to marry someone else). I will mention the film here only because it is probably the only film I've ever seen that actually adds something to the book. In the film (made in 1983, if memory serves), Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons play Sarah and Charles, but they ALSO play their modern-day counterparts, making it a movie within a movie. This layers on further depth and further despair for Charles and lends an unexpected richness to the Victorian portion of the film. Although "The French Lieutenant's Woman" stands staunchly on its own, I highly recommend seeing the movie once you've read the book--if only for the delicious sense of something wonderful having been expanded even further beyond its bookish boundaries.
Rating:
Summary: As clearly a masterpiece today as when it was published
Review: John Fowles' "The French Lieutenant's Woman" is not only a masterpiece, it's an UNUSUAL masterpiece. Fowles takes the story of a mysterious, stubborn woman who clings almost proudly to her shame much in the same way that Hester Prynne does in "The Scarlet Letter"--yet it turns out that there is, after all, no actual reason for shame. But to Sarah Woodruff, the woman in question, shame equals freedom: freedom from constraints both social and emotional. Sarah Woodruff is as full-blooded and full-bodied a literary invention as any character of the 20th century canon, yet she retains a sense of mystery which is absolutely essential. It is for this sense she projects of being impossible to know that she becomes impossibly alluring to Charles Smithson, a wealthy, not-bad-looking, touchingly innocent gentleman who thinks of himself as a man of the world. The action of the book is propelled forward by the attraction Sarah holds for Charles, especially as it is forbidden (he is engaged to marry someone else). I will mention the film here only because it is probably the only film I've ever seen that actually adds something to the book. In the film (made in 1983, if memory serves), Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons play Sarah and Charles, but they ALSO play their modern-day counterparts, making it a movie within a movie. This layers on further depth and further despair for Charles and lends an unexpected richness to the Victorian portion of the film. Although "The French Lieutenant's Woman" stands staunchly on its own, I highly recommend seeing the movie once you've read the book--if only for the delicious sense of something wonderful having been expanded even further beyond its bookish boundaries.
Rating:
Summary: excellent piece of post modern literature
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles
On page 316 of the novel The French Lieutenant's Woman author John
Fowles briefly interrupts the fiction to discuss with the reader his role
as a novelist. He has come up with two very different endings to the novel
and wishes to share both with his readers. However, he cannot give two
storyline endings simultaneously, and if one comes before another, the
final chapter will seem more potent than the first. In trying not to side
with any particular characters he decides on a coin toss to decide which
conclusion to give last. At this point Charles is on a train, and Fowles
considers leaving him there to allow the reader the opportunity devise
their own conclusion for the novel. I can only assume that Fowles came up with both endings at roughly the
same time, and each of them seemed as valid an ending as the other to him.
Traditionally, it would have been up to him to chose one ending and make it
final. However it seems he was not able, or did not want to chose just one
of the endings to the novel. It would seem that Fowles is trying to be fair
to all of the characters by including the various endings which satisfy all
of them. Fowles comments that the job of a novelist is "to put two
conflicting wants in the ring and describe the fight", which is essentially
what he has done. However it is hard to decide for whom to fix the fight in
favor of when one owns both fighters. Fowles also briefly mentions allowing "freedom of characters" in his
writing. This concept is somewhat vague. To allow freedom of characters is
to essentially allow the characters to do anything that the author thinks
of. Why would a character ever not be able to do whatever the author thinks
of ? There are no written rules that authors must conform to while writing
a novel about how characters must behave, and that a character must stay in
character. The identity of the character is constantly changing as the
novel progresses, constantly being updated since the reader has only a
brief glimpse into the life of a character in the novel. I think it would
be quite rare for an author to not allow his characters freedom (unless of
course he is living in a country under dictatorship or communism, but that
doesn't count because the author doesn't have freedom either so why should
his characters). "The chief argument of fight fixing is to show one's readers what one
thinks of the world around one". The author must fix the fight in favor of
one side to make the writing a novel, to create the story with one's views
on the world implanted into it. Fowles however did not live in the world he
is fixing the fight in and can only know about it from other readings or
indirect information. Fowles describes a story that has supposedly taken
place over a century ago, and shows several views of another world by
giving the novel two separate endings. Through this Fowles shows two
separate views , by giving us two separate endings, which essentially
changes his entire outlook on the world from one ending to another. One is
more optimistic than the other, so he gives us an optimistic look at the
world as well as a pessimistic view of the world in which the novel
unfolds. The bulk of Fowles comments on what a novelist should be are somewhat
contradictory to what he has done with his novel. He has said that it is
the job of the author to describe the conflict after having chosen the
outcome. However, Fowles himself seems to play quite an active role in The
French Lieutenant's Woman , often jumping in to give modern day references
such as in the case of Mrs. Poultney and the Gestapo. I believe this kind
of writing is very beneficial for the reader. If the author has enough
information about an era to convincingly write about it, and make
references to modern times, it seems to give the reader a better
understanding of the novel and make them feel more involved. Although
Fowles has said that his job is simply to describe the fight it is somewhat
more interesting when he slips back into the 20th century. In the many places in the novel when Fowles jumps in to the novel to
explain or further describe something, he often gives away that even he
does not know what is going to happen next. It is asthough he is
discovering right along with the reader, as he imagines it the reader reads
it. I writing in this style may be beneficial to the novel. In this way the
other does sub-consciously bias the novel towards the protagonist or
antagonist, but makes the conflict seem realistic enough that it's not
beyond the realm of possibility for either of the sides to take control and
"win" the novel. Through this style of writing, the novel has a more
lifelike feel to it because people don't get inside tips from an other as
they live their real lives. Fowles seems to believe that the novelist should not be thinking or
intentionally creating a plot, but rather to let one unfold and simply
describe it. He makes it out to be as though authors have a peep-hole to
another dimension though which they watch and write down everything they
see. Their job is simply to fix and convincingly report on a fight without
showing too much bias for one side or the other as to not make it too
obvious for whom the fight has been fixed. His views of what a novelist
should be seem quite unique and somewhat idealistic.
Rating: 
Summary: The French Lieutenant's Woman
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman is a Victorian novel by a modern author - the revered John Fowles. The novel concerns a love triangle between a young man on an income, his fiancé, and the mysterious and independent Sarah. Throughout the novel, Fowles takes numerous opportunities to speak directly to the reader in asides that describe the process of writing fiction from an author's perspective. Fowles also speaks directly to the reader to provide some historical information about the Victorians and their age. These asides are enjoyable and make the characters seem less removed from our own time. One quibble: the final resolution of the plot was a bit stilted (the characters basically stand up and explain themselves) and not very satisfying. I'm still not sure I fully understand Sarah's motives. The rest of this novel is very well done, though.
Rating:
Summary: The French Lieutenant's Woman
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman is a Victorian novel by a modern author - the revered John Fowles. The novel concerns a love triangle between a young man on an income, his fiancé, and the mysterious and independent Sarah. Throughout the novel, Fowles takes numerous opportunities to speak directly to the reader in asides that describe the process of writing fiction from an author's perspective. Fowles also speaks directly to the reader to provide some historical information about the Victorians and their age. These asides are enjoyable and make the characters seem less removed from our own time. One quibble: the final resolution of the plot was a bit stilted (the characters basically stand up and explain themselves) and not very satisfying. I'm still not sure I fully understand Sarah's motives. The rest of this novel is very well done, though.
Rating:
Summary: Fowles' most artful, enigmatic tale
Review: The French Lieutenant's Woman is a Victorian-style novel that deals with 20th Century issues. Charles Smithson falls in love with the mysterious Sarah Woodruff, a woman who has been cast aside by the French lieutenant of the book's title. The book shifts in time between past and present, between politics and social issues of today and the Victorian era, as it deals with love, lust, broken promises, and redemption.
Lovely, lyrical, and there's a twist to the surprise ending.
Rating:
Summary: One of the great novels of the century.
Review: There's no question in my mind that two hundred years from now, FLW will be held alongside the other great novels of the century and be seen as a significant and entirely unique literary achievement. Fowles deconstructs the model of the Victorian romantic epic with vivid insight and passion. An evocative portrayal of a unique locale (Lyme Regis) in a singular time, the novel is also a reflection of 20th Century thought that escapes Charles, the novel's protagonist. Bending time and narrative space, the present-day author brings the reader along on an emotional and intellectual journey unlike any other.
Rating:
Summary: this one is on my ration list
Review: This book is one of my all-time favourites and is one of the first books I remember enjoying reading so much that I rationed myself as I neared its end. Since then I've read only a few books that I would also put on my "ration" list : Farrell's "Seige of Krishnapur" and A.S. Byatt's "Possession" to name a few. The list is short and FLW is still on it. Happy reading - it is definitely better than the film!
Rating:
Summary: Masterful
Review: This book is without peer. Worth reading over and over again...
Rating: 
Summary: The worst book ever written
Review: This book was horrible. Not only is the plot bad, but Fowles insists on interrupting it with little tidbits of knowledge that nobody cares about. For example, he spends a page on the derivation of the word blackmail, and a chapter on how to write a book.
| 
