Linda Hutcheon (Hutcheon 1986: 81-94) and David Lodge (Lodge 226-27) consider John Fowles as a article writer, linking modernism and postmodernism also to them Fowles is a copy writer with a two times record in both English and French books as well as in post-structuralist critical theory. Palmer asserts that
In his essay Notes on an Unfinished Book, in which he describes the original conception and the procedure of writing The France Lieutenant's Female, John Fowles asks himself two questions: From what level am I being truly a coward by writing inside the old traditions? To what amount am I being panicked into avant-gardism? His very act of posing these two questions in the same paragraph identifies his real position and signals his search for a middle earth between the two extremes. Just as The People from france Lieutenant's Female, written in an intentionally anachronistic style (Mrs. Poulteney is, for example, an inhabitant of the Victorian valley of the dolls), strives to bring together the Victorian recent and the mid-twentieth-century within order to specify a moral and existential position for future years, so also does indeed Fowles in each book strive to unite the traditional affects which he cannot reject with the new imaginary forms of his own conception which he cannot ignore. (Palmer 4)
The France Lieutenant's woman of the title is Sarah Woodruff, an unhealthy Victorian female, an ex-governess. She starts the novel sitting on the harbour breakwater at Lyme Regis, Dorset, looking out the sea in 1867, exactly prior to the novel was composed. The locals say that Sarah is pining on her behalf lover. Known as tragedy or People from france lieutenant's whore she's the reputation of a fallen girl, because she's supposedly lost her virginity to Varguennes, the departed sailor of the novel's name. Charles Smithson, a minor nobleman who is involved to Ernestina Freeman, child of a prosperous shop owner, considers Sarah on the breakwater. On the goal of assisting Sarah, Charles arranges lots of meetings with her. He realizes he is drawn to Sarah but chooses to give her money and send her away to Exeter. Soon later on, unable to overcome his desire, he pursues her and they make love for the first time in a accommodation. To this distress, he discovers that Sarah was a virgin, and this although Varguennes existed, the storyplot of past seduction was a lie, seemingly intended to alienate herself from Lyme culture whose petty moralism and narrow-mindedness she acquired come to hate. Charles offers to marry Sarah but she refuses and runs away. After breaking of his engagement to Ernestina, thus effectively alienating himself from Victorian population (and from Ernestina's lot of money), Charles detects Sarah in London, where she is working as a model for the Pre-Raphaelite musician Dante Gabriel Rossetti. At this point the story of the book bifurcates. You will discover two endings: in the section before the previous, Sarah and Charles get together, and have a daughter; in the last chapter they split apparently forever.
We first learn about Sarah in the second section when Ernestina and Charles see her at the street:
Is she young?'
It's too far too far to share. '
But I can suppose who it is. It must be poor Tragedy. '
A nickname. Among her nicknames. '
And what exactly are the others?'
The fisherman have a gross name on her behalf. '
My dear Tina, you can surely - '
They call her The French Lieutenant's. . . . Woman. '
. . . .
. . . Who's this French Lieutenant?'
A man said she actually is said to have. . . '
Fallen deeply in love with?'
Worse than that. '
And he abandoned her? There's a child?'
No. I believe no child. It's all gossip. '
But what is she doing there?'
They say she actually is waits for him to come back. ' (People from france Lieutenant's Girl 14-15)
The second world where we find out more about Sarah is again from others' words. It is a field where Mrs. Poulteney and the vicar are along, communicating. Mrs. Poulteney instructs the vicar that she's been looking for you to definitely work in her house:
If you recognized of some sweetheart, some refined one who has come upon unfavorable circumstances. . . '
I am nearly clear what you want. '
I desire to take a friend. I have difficulty in writing now. . . I will be pleased to give a home for such person. '. . . .
[The Vicar]An eligible has occurred if you ask me. Her name is Sarah Woodruff. ' (People from france Lieutenant's Girl 29-30)
It ought to be noticed that Mrs. Poulteney wants some refined one who has come upon undesirable circumstances and the vicar, who is supposed to be a man of faith, is quite prejudiced in his view of Sarah. Thus Fowles presents the normal Victorian girl, Mrs. Poulteney combined with the typical vicar of that age. The narrator declares that the vicar was a relatively emancipated man theologically, but he also understood very well which part his pastoral loaf of bread was buttered (FLW 26-27) which he is taking money from the abundant (FLW 27). As for Mrs. Poulteney and her ideas on religion, the narrator is highly critical:
Mrs. Poulteney had not been a stupid female; indeed, she possessed acuity in useful matters, and her future vacation spot, like all matters regarding her comfort, was a highly practical account. . . As she lay down in her bedroom, she shown on the horrible mathematical doubt that progressively more haunted her: if the Lord determined charity with what one had given or by what you can have afforded to give. She experienced given considerable sums to the church; but she realized they fell much short of the approved one-tenth to be parted with by serious candidates for heaven. Certainly, she had controlled her will to ensure that the account would be handsomely balanced after her death. (FLW 27)
Not merely her determining personality but also her personal references to religious beliefs and God are obviously Victorian. It's the hypocrisy as the narrator calling it, and the religious bigot as J'Nan Morse Sellery claims (Sellery 92). According to Tarbox, Mrs. Poulteney wants that Sarah match the storyplot elements and meet up with the narrative condition of the Religious sin-and-expiation story (Tarbox 90), also to Palmer, she actually is the Dickensian figure. . . who mimics the styles and behaviour of heroes like the evil dwarf Quilp in The Old Attention Shop (Palmer 24). Fowles pulls Mrs. Poulteney, and the locals as Victorian stereotypes. For instance, in Chapter 12 - at the Dairy products, - the dairyman becomes the mark of the novelist:
[The dairyman] provided his better half a stern look. She quickly forewent her chatter and delivered indoors to her copper. [Charles] experienced hardly taken a step whenever a black figure appeared. . . It was the lady. She appeared toward the two numbers below and then continued her way towards Lyme. Charles glanced again at the dairyman, who prolonged to give the physique above a dooming stare.
. . . . . Have you any idea that woman?'
Does indeed she come this way often?'
Often enough. ' The dairyman extended to stare. Then he said, And she beent no female. She be the French Loot'n'nt's Hoer. '
Some moments transferred before Charles grasped the meaning of the last word. And he threw an upset go through the bearded dairyman, who was a Methodist and for that reason fond of getting in touch with a spade a spade, in particular when the spade was an individual else's sin. He seemed to Charles incarnate all the hypocritical gossip - and gossips - of Lyme. Charles can have believed many things of that sleeping face; but never that its owner was a whore.
Fowles presents significant amounts of Victorian life and fiction in this novel where the human relationships and the attitudes of Victorian people are parodied. Fowles takes his readers back to the Victorian period within an ironic mode, to be able to compare the nineteenth-century totalizing notions of the type of fiction and reality, and of do it yourself and world with those of existentialism (Onega 39). Fowles meticulously, but also cunningly, instructs us factual statements about the Victorian Period and Victorian fiction:
What are we confronted with in the nineteenth century? An time where woman was sacred; and where you could buy a thirteen-year-old lady for a few pounds - a few shillings, if you wanted her for only a couple of hours. Where more churches were built than in the whole previous background of the country; and where one in sixty houses in London was a brothel (the modern proportion would be nearer one in six thousand). Where the sanctity of relationship (and chastity before relationship) was proclaimed out of every pulpit, atlanta divorce attorneys newspaper. . . Where the female body possessed never been so hidden from view. . . Where there is not a single book, play or poem of literary distinction that ever should go beyond the sensuality of your kiss, where Dr. Bowlder. . . was broadly considered a general population benefactor; and where in fact the productivity of pornography hasn't been exceeded. (FLW 258)
It really is thus, relevant to the Victorian practices that while Charles is sexually experienced, and his activities are kept key; Ernestina employs upper-class conventions and remains a virgin. These are bound by elaborate convention, sociable ritual, and legal things to consider in their engagement (Landrum 108). Furthermore, when Charles is trying to persuade Sarah to leave Lyme, and go to London, she says that If I went to London, I know very well what I will become which I should become what so a lot of women who have lost their honour become in great towns. . . I should become what some already call me in Lyme (FLW 138). That is clearly what Victorian novelists handled. Later, Sarah utters typical Victorian women's discourse, when Charles expresses that he wants to become closer to her:
Because you have journeyed. Because you are informed. Because you are a gentleman. Because. . . because, I really do not know, I live among people the earth informs me are kind, pious, Religious people. And they seem to me crueler than the cruelest heathens, stupider than the stupidest animals. I cannot believe that. . . there are not spirits ample enough to understand what I've suffered and just why I suffer. . . which whatever sins I have committed, it isn't right that I will suffer much. ' (FLW 139)
She not only has put the class distinction between the two but also her situation as a dropped female in the Victorian years. Sarah finally persuades Charles to meet her at the same place expressing that she needs help in order never to go mad (FLW 141). Sarah's intellect, as the narrator tells us, belong[s] to a uncommon kind is not whatsoever an analytical or problem-solving intellect but she somewhat comes with an uncanny capability to classify and make poetic judgments about people without having to be able to say how she does so. She actually is simply able to comprehend [others], in the fullest sense of this word (FLW 57). She declares through the end of the novel I have learnt a lot of myself. . . I am never to be grasped even by myself. And I cannot tell you why, but I believe my happiness depends upon my not understanding (FLW 354).
EVEN THOUGH THE French Lieutenant's Girl is a imaginary postmodern account, it also has in it most historical factual statements about Victorian times. The narrator, at the very starting asserts the day late March of 1867 (FLW 9), and the Victorian setting up. The reader gradually encounters many elements of the Victorian period in the inner plot. The novel is placed in the Victorian period.
The almost all Fowler's reading, however, has been in the genre where he creates. At one time or another in his novels he alludes to each one of the prominent men and women who preceded him and founded the proper execution of English fiction: Jane Austen, Dickens, George Eliot, Conrad, and, of course, Hardy. But he does not limit himself to English fiction. He seems particularly drawn to the major Continental philosopher and novelists: Dostoevsky, Camus, Sartre. . . For the novelist as competent as Fowles in the past of his genre and in the philosophical thought of his time, the definition of influences is especially important. A lot more important is this is of the complex way Fowles uses and responds to the literary and philosophical influences upon his fiction. Invariably, like the child opposing the father, he rebels against an affect, reshapes it, or redefines it in a modern context. . . INSIDE THE French Lieutenant's Woman, he actually parodies and satirizes his source material. (Palmer 4-5)
Charles and Ernestina's (his fiancée) daddy, at the beginning of the novel argue about Darwin. As Ernestina's father will not really support Darwin and Charles' scientific quarrels on Darwin, Ernestina explains to Charles: [My daddy] have say that he'd not his girl marry a guy who considered his grandfather to be an ape (FLW 13). Here she comes to realize that this is the greatest obstacle for their relationship (FLW 13). Neary, suggests
Charles. . . is to a certain level a Victorian rebel from the beginning. Having toyed with faith and hedonism, he has turned into a committed Darwinist; now a reasonably skilled paleontologist, he is also a quite competent ornithologist and botanist in to the bargain (44) - a genuine intellectual ally of his creator. Sexually, however, Charles is really as standard as a Jane Austen hero; his courtship of Ernestina Freeman contains the type of repartee that witty Austen lovers take part in. (Neary 168)
As the secondary plot is about Sam Farrow and Charles Smithson and mainly about class struggle, the reader can easily notice some course issues also in the main storyline: Sarah Woodruff must make money and undergo the tyrannical girl Mrs. Poulteney in order to make it through. Charles Smithson is abundant Victorian man who has never performed in his life and who have spent his life with travel and interests, waiting for inheritance (FLW 13).
Sarah, early in the book feels inferior to Charles (as mentioned before), with one time, when they meet in Cobb, Charles tells Sarah that I am wealthy by chance, you are poor by chance (FLW 161). The narrator suggests here that Charles is trying to be sympathetic to Sarah but this indeed was his plan, he in simple fact would like to establish a distance [in order to] remind [Sarah] with their difference of station (FLW 161).
Sarah instructs about her life in section 20. Her father was bankrupt and all [their] belongings were sold and he had died in a lunatic asylum and she became only without any family (FLW 167). Of this so-called lieutenant, Varguennes, Sarah clarifies to Charles that he got her to a hotel that was less expensive than the other[s] and frequently used by French seamen as Varguennes informed her (FLW 169). Then she says I have given myself to him. . . So I am a doubly dishonoured woman. By circumstances. And by choice (FLW 170). When Varguennes could no longer hide the nature of his real motive towards [Sarah, ]. . . . she chose to stay [with him] (FLW 170). The reason why for why Sarah offered herself to Varguennes are described by her as I did it so that folks should point at me, should say, there walks the People from france Lieutenant's Whore - oh yes, let the word be said; she also says that she cannot marry him so [she] committed pity (FLW 171). It is the first moment the storyplot becomes stunning. The reader does not really guess Sarah, the traditional Victorian female, to make such explanations. Michael puts forth, at this time, a feminist method of the book:
The feminism, which Fowles wants to attribute to Sarah, is apparent in what she is made to speak. Sarah proudly asserts her growing independence when she expresses that she's married pity because there was no alternative way to break out of what I was which because of this she now has freedom and No insult, no blame, can touch her (175). Fowles has Sarah create her own fictions to be able to focus on Sarah's attempt to step beyond conventional patriarchal modern culture and to identify herself outside of guy fictions about women. . . By the finish of the novel, Sarah's words - I wish to be what I am (405) - and Charles' notion that she has gained a new self-knowledge and self-possession (451) reveal that Fowles would like to portray Sarah as having noticed a feminist awareness. It is obvious that, although Fowles to a certain level romanticizes Sarah's search for a feminist awareness by depicting her as an enigmatic and tragic number, the novel will assert this theme of emancipation and of Sarah's development into the New Woman (443). (Michael 226-7)
When Sarah learned that Varguennes was a married man and understood that he'd not come again, she made a decision to conceal her intended former from everyone in order to become an outcast'. Now, she will not want to leave Lyme since she does not want to leave her pity: the local people see her as the French Lieutenant's Whore and she actually is somehow happy with this pity. Gaggi asserts that things that motivate [Sarah's] manipulative actions in marriage to Charles are love, retaliation against the social course that excludes her and [the] hatred of the male intimacy (Gaggi 117), and places forth an interesting argument stating,
Sarah is amazing because she eludes all systems, including the four major Victorian systems presented in French Lieutenant: religious morality, social category, male supremacy, and empirical knowledge. The first two are epitomized by the despicable Mrs. Poulteney. Charles and Emestina naively respect themselves as modern, enlightened individuals, Mrs. Poultney's opposites in all respects. In spite of his commitment to reason, however, Charles is not at all so free of classic, if not spiritual, morality as he considers, and he is certainly not free of prejudices and presuppositions predicated on class and gender. And knowledge, for him, is itself a religious beliefs, one he stocks with Dr. Grogan. When Charles and Grogan confess themselves to be Darwinians, it is as if they are acknowledging membership in a top secret sect. Grogan later swears secrecy to Charles, using THE FOUNDATION of the Kinds as though it were a bible. (Gaggi 119)
Even though the book appears to be about Sarah, we never learn deeply about her. Jackson says in his article that Given only a smallest amount of her record, we can make only the most hazy and standard sociohistorical explanations for her situation and in order to support his view, reveals Jane Eyre who in the end lived much the same life as Sarah (Jackson 233).
The narrator interestingly states My problem is simple - what Charles would like is clear? It really is indeed. But what the protagonist would like is not clear; and I am never sure where she is at the moment (FLW 389). Therefore the internal thoughts of the protagonist are left hazy. As Jackson declares in all the most dramatic displays between Charles and Sarah, descriptions of her activities are peppered with the ambiguous key phrase as if' and words such as seems' and almost' (Jackson 233). While Palmer considers Charles and Sarah as protagonists (Palmer 65), Neary expresses that the protagonist in the French Lieutenant's Girl may well be not just one of the story's people but rather its narrator, its words (Neary 162) and relating to Cooper,
[When] Sarah explains to Charles ostensibly true report of her seduction in Section 20, . . . she is presented for the very first time as handling narrator - even though the reader at this time perceives her as autobiographer rather than a fictionalizer - for now her storyline has reached us only through the fragmented versions of the vicar, Dr. Grogan, and the book's narrator. . . Our company is thus asked to see Sarah's narratorial work as at probabilities with her character, a required artifice sullying her innate straightforwardness; it appears that to be an artist is not Sarah's vocation. The finish of the novel confirms this by demonstrating her as the contented helper to an musician. (Cooper 120-121)
The metafictionally present modern narrator. . . jars with and parodies the conventions of the nineteenth-century novelistic tale of Charles, Sarah, and Ernestina. The many. . . narrators and fiction-makers (Fowles, the narrator, his persona, Charles, and lastly Sarah) enact the novel's designs of flexibility and electric power, of creation and control. The multiple parodies of specific Victorian novels (by Thackeray, George Eliot, Dickens, Froude, Hardy) are matched by more general ironic play on nineteenth-century authoritative narrating voices, audience address, and narrative closure. (Hutcheon 1988: 45)
Fowles's authorial tone asserts itself within the text, and its own importance can't be overlooked. When the narrator steps into the novel as a character in Section 13, a sharper distinction is established between author and narrator that emphasizes the layering of voices making up the text. The narrator remarks that This tale I am showing is all creativeness. These characters I create never existed outside my very own mind (FLW 97). Fowles places forth the postmodern strategy, the novel talking about itself. The narrator - or the writer - in this chapter, is talking about the characteristics of book as a genre along with the process where the novelist creates his/her book. Fowles breaks the rules of standard writing right at the middle of a Victorian novel, dealing with the audience:
But I am a novelist, not really a man in the garden - I can follow [Sarah] where I love?. . . It may seem novelists always have fixed plans to which they work, so the future expected by Chapter An example may be always inexorably the reality of Chapter Thirteen. But novelists write for countless different reasons: for money, for fame, for reviewers, for parents, for friends, for family members; for vanity, for delight, for interest, for amusement. . . Only 1 same reason is distributed by all of us: we desire to create worlds as real as, but other than the planet that is. Or was. This is why we can not plan. . . We also know a genuinely created world is 3rd party of its creator; a planned world. . . is a inactive world. It is merely when our individuals and events start to disobey us that they commence to live. When Charles still left Sarah on her behalf cliff-edge, I bought him to walk right back to Lyme Regis. But he didn't; he gratuitously changed and went down to the Dairy products. (FLW 98)
Inside the Victorian period, book writing was predicated on depicting the real as it is. However, fiction has never been as real as the earth itself. The narrator's statement The novelist continues to be a god (FLW 99) foregrounds Fowles's role as the author. The author is a god in the sense that he still creates. The narrator suggests What has changed is that people are no more the gods of Victorian image, omniscient and decreeing; but in the new theological image, with freedom our first process, not authority (FLW 99). Furthermore, Fowles brings forth, in the same chapter, the traditional idea of a fictional personality: normally the reader would think a figure is either real' or imaginary'; however, Fowles's narrator contradicts the reader saying, You don't even think of your own past as quite real; you dress it up, you gild it or blacken it, censor it, tinker with it, . . . fictionalize it, in a word, and put it away on a shelf (FLW 99). That which we think real is even not real in the sense that people fictionalize all the reality in our personal life. The illusion of the fictional world is destroyed when Fowles emphasizes the author's access to the imaginary world and therefore gets into himself to the book.
If I have pretended until now to know my people' heads and innermost thoughts, for the reason that I am writing in. . . a convention universally accepted during my tale that the novelist stands next to God. He might not exactly know all, yet he attempts to pretend that he does. But I live in the age of Alan Robbe-Grillet and Roland Barthes; if this is a novel, it can't be a novel in the modern sense of the word. (FLW 97)
The narrator inside the French Lieutenant's Female, is one who. . . periodically enters his own narrative to comment upon (among other things) the operations of story-telling itself (Cooper 104). It's the twentieth century postmodernist author and an intrusive and parodically omniscient narrator (Onega 39) creates about Victorian individuals. The historical Victorian and the modern-day are mingled in the same book.
By offering a contemporary point of view on nineteenth century experience, the narrator presents the hindsight permitted by background, and in this way, facilitates the brightness of days gone by in the optic of present. Furthermore, in an opposite but equivalent way, his historical dual perspective also allows the present to function as a mirror for the past, and the reader may contemplate the Victorian age from the paradoxical point of view of futurity. . . [I]t is a personified narrator who ranges knowledgeably within the intellectual scenery of the twentieth century while showing up with disconcerting physical specificity, in the geographical scenery of the nineteenth. (Cooper 105)
We cannot be sure whether Sarah has designed her actions - or the narrator has prepared about her actions; - or Sarah has disobeyed the narrator as he has stated in Section 13. Sarah exposes herself to Mrs. Fairley, the girl who says Mrs. Poultney that Sarah was seen in the Cobb Gate walking by the sea (FLW 67) despite her warnings. We have no idea the key reason why she is revealing to lies. We see her establishing the world in Exeter. However in truth only after Exeter can we look again and believe that she might have been planning from the very first (Jackson 232). Sarah is an outcast. She blames both circumstances (her destiny) and other folks. She actually is here a typical Victorian governess from the normal Victorian Books in Britain.
During her absence, the audience, it is no longer the omniscient narrator who's in a god-like position and is aware everything. The audience no longer knows about Sarah. After she leaves Lyme, Sarah is absent in the book and is just within Charles's brain and the local people' mouth area. She will not appear in the book again - regardless of the subject; - Charles and Ernestina get together; the narrator points out that they did not live happily hereafter; however they lived jointly, though Charles finally survived her by a decade (and earnestly mourned her throughout it). They begat what shall it be - why don't we say seven children (FLW 325).
The narrator later claims What happened to Sarah I do not know - whatever it was, she never stressed Charles again personally, how - ever long she may have lingered in his storage area (FLW 325). This kind of closing would be an unhappy one as the narrator, too, suggests; and it can be considered a phony ending. The reader soon realizes that the book has not completed yet when the narrator starts Chapter 45 commenting upon this kind of traditional stopping:
And now, having brought this fiction to a carefully traditional ending, I had fashioned better make clear that although all I've described in the last two chapters occurred, it did not happen quite in the manner you might have been resulted in believe that. (FLW 327)
In the second finishing of the novel, Charles decides to visit Endicott's Hotel. The audience seems deceived for the next time when s/he realizes Sarah's lay about the French lieutenant. In this second closing, Charles goes to Endicott's Family Hotel to see Sarah again and when he does, she seem[s] to him much smaller (FLW 332). Finding her [is] the necessity; he needs to have her, to melt into her, to burn up, to lose, to shed to ashes on that body and in those eyes (FLW 334). The narrator declares that Sarah is his slave and his equal (FLW 334). After they have sex in chapter 46, both feel estranged for they have sinned (FLW 340). Regardless of how Charles insists on marriage, Sarah rejects it and insists that [she] is not worth him, but Ernestina (FLW 339). Charles realizes that she was a virgin and he's accountable for this; she had not given herself to Varguennes. She acquired lied (FLW 341). She confesses that she's deceived him and that the thing where [she has] not deceived him: [she] adored him (FLW 342). In Section 50, we see Charles talk to Ernestina who's totally submissive and unaggressive before him. She says that I know I am not uncommon. I am not a Helen of Troy or a Cleopatra (FLW 363), and this I bore you about domestic arrangements, I injure you after i make fun of your fossils (FLW 364). She declares that she may become better under [Charles's] education (FLW 364). She is passive enough when she begs (FLW 364) him and guarantees that she would forego anything to make [him] happy (FLW 365). After he leaves Ernestina, he chooses to find Sarah. While presenting Charles's hopeful search for Sarah, the narrator interferes again and addresses Charles: The particular devil am I heading regarding you? He goes on saying,
I have previously thought of ending Charles's career here and now; of leaving him for eternity on his way to London. But the conventions of Victorian fiction allow, allowed no place for the wide open. . . My problem is easy - what Charles wants is clear? It really is indeed. What the protagonist wants is not so clear; and I am not sure where she is at the moment. (FLW 389)
The narrator's problem is that, because of the alphabetic characteristics of terminology, he cannot give both types simultaneously (FLW 390). Charles, at this point, is looking at the narrator as though he is a gambler or mentally deranged (FLW 390); after all he is the creation of the narrator - or the writer.
In Chapter Forty-four Charles Smithson felt himself coming to the finish of a story; and to an end he did not like. . . . The book of his living, so it seemed to him, was going to come to a distinctly shabby close (266-67). To Charles, an omnipotent Victorian novelist is, with regard to convention, imposing an essence upon his life. But in Section Forty-five Charles assumes new lease of life, and a new ending (or set of endings) begins. Equally as Charles finds the traditional ending of any love affair with Sarah distinctly shabby, so also will Fowles find the original Victorian stopping to his novel unsatisfactory. Fowles's characters. . . won't be Victorianized (victimized, tyrannized), and the book continues to be able to fulfill itself as a lifelike work of art. (Palmer 73)
Charles's last meeting with Sarah in Dante Gabriel Rossetti's house is another alternative ending in the French Lieutenant's Woman. Sarah sounds modern-day at the end of the novel whenever we learn that she is working as a model for Dante Gabriel Rossetti. For both of the endings Charles, having abandoned everything for Sarah, discovers that she's left, and he has lost her. He looks for her, finally gives up, spends two years traveling as an escape, and earnings when his legal professional writes informing him she's been found. At the moment, she actually is working as a secretary for Dante Gabriel Rossetti. She has not become a prostitute as she got earlier dreamed her destiny to be but has become the emancipated girl she perhaps always was (Gaggi 124). When Charles will try to persuade her to marry him she refuses him proclaiming that she has chosen liberty.
The France Lieutenant's Woman is perhaps the best book by Fowles. It is not only the report of Charles and Sarah but also of the novelist. Along with the love storyline, it gets the postmodern narrative. Fowles employs both Victorian traditional issues and postmodern writing technique that is to say, footnotes, authorial intrusion and estimates from other books. By using the materials of two different ages, he connects history and present. The various endings one being conventional and the last one being contemporary also contribute to this connection of past and present; therefore, the original and the postmodern.
Fowles, John. The People from france Lieutenant's Female. London, Vintage: 1969.
Cooper, Pamela. The Fiction of John Fowles: Electricity, Imagination and Femininity. Canada, College or university of Ottawa Press: 1991.
Gaggi, Silvio. Modern/Postmodern: A Study in Twentieth-Century Arts and Ideas. Philadelphia, College or university of Pennsylvania Press: 1989.
Hutcheon, Linda. The Real World(s)' of Fiction: The France Lieutenant's Woman' English Studies in Canada 4 (1978). Reprinted in Ellen Pifer, (ed), Critical Essays on John Fowles. Boston, Mass. : G. K. Hall, 1986.
_______________. A Poetics of Postmodernism: Background, Theory, Fiction. London, Routledge: 1988.
Jackson, Tony. E. Charles and the Hopeful Monster: Postmodern Evolutionary Theory in The France Lieutenant's Female' Twentieth Century Books. Quantity: 43. Issue: 2. Hofstra University: 1997.
Landrum, David. Rewriting Marx: Emancipation and Repair in The People from france Lieutenant's Woman' Twentieth Century Literature. Quantity: 42. Issue: 1. Hofstra University or college: 1996.
Lodge, David. The Methods of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Books. London: Edward Arnold, 1977.
Michael, Magali Cornier. Who is Sarah? A Critique of the French Lieutenant's Wotnan's Feminism Critique. Size: 28. Concern: 4. : 1987.
Neary, John. Something and Nothingness: The Fiction of John Updike & John Fowles. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, IL. : 1992.
Onega, Susan. Self, World and Fine art in the Fiction of John Fowles Twentieth Century Literature. Amount: 42. Issue: 1. Hofstra School: 1996.
Palmer, William J. The Fiction of John Fowles: Tradition, Fine art, and the Loneliness of Selfhood. Columbia, MO, College or university of Missouri Press: 1974.
Sellery, J'Nan Morse. CHALLENGING with Sarah: Fowles, Pinter, Reisz, and the French Lieutenant's Woman Western Virginia College or university Philological Papers. Western Virginia University, Section of Foreign Dialects: 2000.
Tarbox, Katherine. The France Lieutenant's Girl' and the Evolution of the Narrative Twentieth Century Books. Volume: 42. Concern: 1. Hofstra School: 1996.