"The French Lieutenant’s Woman" - Themes, narrative perspective, and the meaning of the main characters’ relationship

Contents

1.  Introduction  2

2.  The influence of Darwinism on Charles  2

3.  Victorian England in The French Lieutenant s Woman  4

4.  Narrative Perspective  7

5.  The alternative endings  10

6.  The characterization of Sarah and Charles  12

6.1  The development of the relationship between Sarah and Charles  

  13  

7.  The relationship considered as a godgame  14

8.  Résumé  

  16  

9.  Works Cited  17

  1  

1. Introduction One of John Fowles’s most famous works, The French Lieutenant’s Woman (abbreviated FLW in the following) is remarkable in many ways. The author combines an intriguing story, narrated in the typical Victorian manner, with a detailed account of Victorian England. Moreover, Fowles also manages to convey to the reader his actual conviction of how a novel should be written from the modern author’s stance, while criticizing both the “form-obsessed noveau roman school” (Huffaker 99) and the shortcomings of Victorian writing-techniques.

This research paper will examine some aspects of FLW, mainly the central theme of Darwinism, and the accurate depiction of the Victorian age while maintaining a certain critical distance. Also, the narrative perspective and the alternative endings while be discussed, and finally the development and meaning of the central relationship between the protagonists Sarah Woodruff and Charles Smithson.

2. Darwinism

One of the novel’s central themes is Darwin’s theory of evolution, in several ways: firstly, it links Victorian era and modern times, being still valid today. Secondly, it profoundly influences the novel’s characters, particularly Sarah and Charles. Finally, it gives a deeper meaning to the novel, as Fowles establishes Darwin’s ideas as correct and acceptable (Oertel 37-38).

Charles firmly believes in Darwin’s ideas, and should thus be expected to be able to recognize the challenges imposed on him in the course of the novel, but the narrator informs the reader of Charles’ incapability to fully understand Darwin (53).

The fact that Charles shot one of the last bustards of the Salisbury plain serves as a proof for his superiority, as he “contributed to the extinction of an ‘inferior’ species” (Conradi 74).

2

Hence, he himself must belong to a species (if the Victorian gentleman is to be accepted as an own species) not doomed to suffer extinction. His firm belief in his own affiliation to an elite leads to his arrogance towards members of lower classes, which is displayed when he interrogates his servant about his relationship to Mary (110-111), and also very directly when Sam confesses his intentions of going into trade himself:

“Charles stared at Sam rather as if the Cockney had decided to turn Buddhist. … I warn you, Sam, once you take your ideas above your station you will have nothing but unhappiness.” (314-315) Obviously, there is much irony in this: Charles, the “infallible master” (315), firmly believing himself to be one of the ‘fittest’ selected for survival, fails to adapt in the end. On top of this, his “fallible underling” (ibid) Sam, who probably has never heard of Darwin’s theory, manages to adapt and advance in the end, at Charles’s expense, to some extent. Here lies Charles’s central problem: he is unable to develop; he cannot change to overcome what he is. This is either due to the fact that Charles really does not understand Darwin’s theory or due to his inability to change.

The second possibility his much more likely, because Charles is an intelligent man, and Ernestina’s father, Mr. Freeman, points out the exact solution when acknowledging the Darwinian principle of adaptation in order to survive (277). One should think that Charles, as much as he hates the idea of working in commerce (or even working at all), must realize his problem and accept its solution at this point.

Nevertheless, Charles must have understood some part of Darwinism, since he does not blame Sarah for the character she was born with and the influences that have shaped her; thus following the principle of genetic determination and social influence established by Darwin (Oertel 29).

3

The gentleman, as defined in the Victorian age (basically someone who was born into the upper class and is wealthy enough to spend his life as an idle rich), is an obsolete species, unable to survive in a time marked by what Mr. Freeman defines:

“This is a great age of progress. And progress is like a lively horse.

Either one rides it, or it rides one. […] But this is an age of doing, great doing, Charles. […] You must reflect on this.” (278) But again, the narrator, calling Charles a “poor living fossil” (281), hints at his inability to adapt, which also becomes clear when Charles feels uncomfortable in a corridor decorated with contemporary art and longs for Winsyatt’s “‘wretched’ old paintings and furniture; its age, its security” (278). Obviously, Charles does not reflect upon it, at least not sufficiently, he remains unable to meet the challenge imposed on his ‘species’ by progress. Other characters, such as Mr. Freeman, Sarah, and Sam, adapt successfully to new circumstances or shape their own future by being proactive, but Charles cannot change. However, the open ending, which will be dealt with later on, does not completely rule out the possibility of evolution.

3. Victorian England in „The French Lieutenant’s Woman“

The question of whether or not Fowles’s work can be called a historic novel has been put by critics such as Wolfe (124), and Huffaker. While the latter attests the book historical qualities “at its elementary level” (98), Wolfe points out that Fowles himself rejects this category, as does Conradi (59), who accentuates the classical Victorian characteristics of the novel. Katherine Tarbox does not bring up the question but classifies FLW as a “parallelism” consisting of “a parody of the Victorian novel” and a “modern novel” (80), explaining which tokens of both genres are found in FLW. The following analysis of how the Victorian age is

4