Category: British and Irish Literature

Uneasy Modernity in D. H. Lawrence’s The Rainbow

D. H. Lawrence’s The Rainbow is a frustrating book. I have a suspicion that it was probably supposed to be. Following the lives of three generations of the Brangwen family in Nottinghamshire in the 19th century, it is primarily the story of their struggles to assert themselves and their identities. While the older generations have only limited success, Ursula, the granddaughter of our original Brangwen hero Tom, is able to achieve something closer to what she wants for her (emotional) life.

That she does so is a little ironic. The Brangwens may be progressing financially and socially in the story, but it is clear that for Lawrence the world around them in late 19th and early 20th century England is not. Rather, it’s becoming increasingly more awful as continues to industrialize and modernise. What complicates this situation is that it is precisely the progress Lawrence dislikes – economic, educational, and social – which allows Ursula the chance to be herself in the way she thinks she ought. Otherwise, I think this might have been quite a one-dimensional book.

The Rainbow was my first full-length Lawrence, after a few of his poems and his well-known short story, “The Odour of Chrysanthemums”. The best compliment I can give him, not that I think he’d necessarily care for my feedback even if he weren’t dead almost a hundred years, is that he certainly has his own distinctive approach. The characters of The Rainbow only ever experience strong feelings. The best way to describe them for one who hasn’t read him is that they are like jugs of emotions just sloshing about more than real people. Regularly, the feelings pour over the brim and make a mess on the carpet.

Central to these emotions are love and hate, and the frustration that leads to their regular alternations. Anna Brangwen, the adopted daughter of Tom Brangwen, imagines her premarital life as like a torture cell where she could “neither stand nor lie stretched out, never.” She escapes her home by marrying Will Brangwen, son of one of Tom’s brothers. At first, things are good: “Gradually a low, deep-sounding will in him vibrated to her, tried to set her in accord, tried to bring her gradually to him, to a meeting, till they should be together, till they should meet as the sheaves that swished together.”

Then, just as quickly, things are bad. First, she’s crying, and then he is. They are unable to talk to each other, and Will takes up drinking – the men in The Rainbow are always going up to the village to get drunk alone, and Will quickly joins their number. When they visit a cathedral – Will likes them as a kind of hobby – Anna decides to ruin his faith through mockery and doubt and largely succeeds, leaving him miserable. They then make up just as suddenly, and it almost seems as if Lawrence approves of this destruction because he suggests it leads to better sex. At another point, Will tries to seduce a stranger and when he returns home the result is the same – better sex. Both he and Anna no longer feel obliged to be good or obey or social norms, and their passion for one another reaches a new height. (I lost track of how many babies she has throughout the novel, or how many fallings-out.)

The only child who matters within this book, however, is Ursula, the eldest daughter. On the first page of The Rainbow we learn that the Brangwens are all born with a look of “expectancy” on their faces, and it is with Ursula that we get closest to fulfilment. In the background of the book’s several hundred pages, modernity has crept into the story. By the time of Ursula’s section, we have the occasional motor car and the Boer War to help us date things, while the suffragettes are trying to get women the right to vote. The Brangwen family has also grown. At first, they were reasonably well-off farmers, but the growth of towns nearby thanks to coal mining makes them more money and allows them to climb a little socially.

Most directly for Ursula, this helps her to become a teacher and try to live an independent life. She also then goes to college to actually train to be a teacher, which perhaps she should have done before doing the teaching. In between all this she has her experience of first love with the son of a friend of her mother’s, an extremely homoerotic experience with a female friend, and through her other acquaintances she also comes across such ideas as the cause of the suffragettes.

In general, however, and as I mentioned at the beginning, Lawrence seems very hostile towards the modern world. The corporal punishment Ursula has to mete out to her children at the freshly-built new school seems as demeaning to her as it is to them, while the teaching itself is unstructured and primarily rote-learning. The suffragettes are criticised for thinking about ideas rather than actual human fulfilment, and as for the growth of towns and urban spaces Lawrence memorably describes them as “a red-brick confusion rapidly spreading, like a skin-disease”. People everywhere seem to be turning into machines, and Lawrence is no fan.

His own ideas are much more timeless, or at least timeless-seeming. There’s an emphasis on personal freedom and self-assertion, but mainly through passionate sex rather than upending society. In fact, there’s no real sense of society at all – Lawrence’s characters are all monstrous egotists only brushing against each other when their blood is pumping. The greatest moments are moments of nakedness – Anna dancing in her bedroom nude, or Ursula running on the beach naked. That’s the fulfilment everyone wants here and not the vote. But we might also notice, unsurprisingly, that even if a partner is present, these are moments of self-fulfilment rather than of joint, let alone of collective fulfilment. The men observing feel left out, alienated. (I am not sure Lawrence liked men who were not himself.)

Lawrence uses religious language and symbols to give his work a kind of mythic edge and his ideas the stamp of Truth. Early moments of love are described as “the light of the transfiguration”; at one point Ursula is compared to the serpent in the Garden of Eden; and cathedrals play a reasonably prominent role. The clear delineation between and essentialising of men and women, a sense of cyclicity (Brangwens on their first illicit strolls with lovers always seem to find the same paths to tread), and biblical images like a flood and the rainbow of the novel’s title, all make Lawrence’s narrator seem like someone presenting some timeless discovery, as if he has gone back to the root of things to find their real essence.

It is not so, of course. Lawrence may attempt to cloak himself in the Bible, but his main influences seem to be the classic German thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. When we read that “she felt his will fastening on her and pulling her down, even whilst he was silent and obscure,” we think of Schopenhauer’s idea of a fallen humanity controlled by clashing wills. When we consider Lawrence’s rejection of modernity (“I hate democracy”, Ursula cries embarrassingly) and his love of the body, there’s more than a touch of Nietzsche and his successors in the Lebensphilosophie movement, while Freud is also here in much of the more detailed psychological assessments of the effects of modern society on the individual soul.

One is allowed to be influenced by others, of course, and Lawrence not being a real prophet does not devalue his ideas necessarily and certainly not his book as a whole. In fact, The Rainbow was banned in the UK for some years after its initial publication, which is generally a sign that it did reflect a certain truth. A truth about sex in particular – this is, undoubtedly, the sexiest book I’ve read which does not mention the male member once. Like de Sade, there’s a sense that even if Lawrence has a limited view of female empowerment, it’s one that still undermines the view that women exist only to be caregivers and dolls.

Overall, the ideas are actually reasonable enough; the problem is that, wishing to convince us of their Truth, Lawrence takes the easy option of disallowing debate or counterargument to exist. Characters are either sellouts to modernity who become like machines and are dropped by Ursula, or they are having great sex. I suspect there may be more to the matter than that. Anna has fifty babies, while Ursula gets engaged, goes on a mad one, and then breaks the whole thing off. The life of the body is good and fun, but I dislike the way Lawrence completely devalues the mind. I suppose once we accept he is right about everything we are supposed to stop thinking, if we were supposed to think at all.

One figure I thought of regularly while reading The Rainbow was Dostoevsky. Both he and Lawrence can only write characters whose emotional states are strained so taut you can hear the thrumming as soon as they leap onto the page; both he and Dostoevsky could have done with a better editor; both he and Lawrence have their own visions of how things are. But of the two, only Dostoevsky actually places his ideas against those of his enemies in such a way that even today, many readers can be quite convinced that he wasn’t really a toady old reactionary Christian nationalist. With Lawrence, you’d need to be an idiot to miss what he’s on about. Which altogether just makes him seem naïve and a bit silly, even before we start thinking about the ideas themselves.

Yet this is not a bad book by any stretch. One reason why this is so is the tension I noted at the start on the subject of modernity. Ursula goes to a better school than her parents, she is able to get a job where her mother gets none, and I might even suggest that her willingness to have sex while ultimately backing out of marriage indicates that she was not entirely deaf to some of the more radical ideas her suffragette friends may have been mentioning. In other words, her choices do not come out of nowhere – the world may be getting worse, but it is also opening up new opportunities for achieving the kind of self-realisation that Lawrence definitely loves.

There’s an irony in all that which he may have noticed himself. Such an irony, and the question of how much self-fulfilment Ursula will actually get within that world, makes her part of the novel by far the most interesting. Indeed, it even sustains itself into a sequel, Women in Love, which I will probably read at some point. This, and the occasional richness of the sloshing-about of these characters’ sensual emotions, makes The Rainbow quite the sensual experience. Just one that I will not rush to return to until I have gone outside and first touched the grass. 

Enduring Enduring Love

Enduring Love has a justly famous opening, bringing together a group of strangers as they attempt in vain to avert a hot air balloon catastrophe in the English countryside. It then shifts focus to become a strange book about the obsessive relationship between a young religious gay man, Jed Parry, and our narrator, Joe Rose, middle-aged and married (to a woman, Clarissa). I had read McEwan’s Atonement before, so I was on the lookout for narrative games, and was convinced I had spotted a twist only to discover that there was no twist after all.

The problem with the book is that it seems rather disorganised. With a title mentioning love you have a razor-sharp thematic focus right from the beginning, and love is complex enough that it can sustain the lengthiest of works. (Including a different Clarissa, in fact.) Enduring Love, however, is not a long work. Yet it seems burdened by its title, forced into discussing love, and forced by the thought of love’s range into talking about all too much. It’s wide in scope, rather than deep. Love is one word, but it can take many forms, each of which is rich enough for a story.

Instead, speaking broadly, we have: the romantic love of Joe for Clarissa and vice versa, the obsessive love of Jed for Joe, Jed’s love of God, Joe’s love of science, Clarissa’s love for Keats, the love of the widow of one of the men who tried to stop the balloon for her husband, who nevertheless she suspects had cheated on him, the love of a trio of drug addicts for one another, reflections on the love of parents for children, and so on.

In other words, there is too much here. The main focus, Jed’s obsession for Joe (and its contrast to Joe’s relationship with Clarissa), is not given enough development despite being the dominant part of the book. The tonics, questions of moral responsibility associated with the hot air balloon catastrophe (is Joe to blame for the victim’s death?), and the contrast of reason (science) and emotions (God, faith), are too faintly drawn.

Then there is the matter of the plot. Enduring Love is a book where things actually happen. But it is also a painfully real novel. It is the most upper-middle-class English story I have ever read. It’s just about people who have nice picnics with things from Waitrose or occasionally Fortnum and Mason, who have nice houses and nice friends. The upper middle class. My people, (by birth and education, if not always by inclination). So, when we have attempted assassinations by hired killers in busy restaurants, or calling up old friends to help us buy handguns from drug dealers, there’s something that seems more laughable than congruent. The opening scene is unlikely yet believable, the rest is just silly. (And as the action is being driven by characters, we can hardly say this fits into the whole ordered universe vs randomness theme, either).

There’s a fundamental tension in modern middle-class life, it seems to me, which causes problems for novelists. In the good old days, love plots were typically structured as being against society, and brought readers on side by the truth of the love against society’s fakeness. Now, with scant exception, we can love who we want, and though we may occasionally face some disapproval, in western Europe for the dominant social groupings we cannot create nearly enough drama to make a story. Instead, the novelist of average talent or below who wants to write about passionate love and make a story of it, is practically obliged to write about something like obsession.

Obsession, however, places the lover outside of society. It’s inherently less interesting because it reflects little back on our world. Its lessons stop as soon as we think about what makes obsession happen, patting ourselves on the back at the obvious conclusion that, for the example, we must be an atomised society to cause such madness in its members. In Enduring Love, Jed is not integrated in society. He is a loner, living at home, with no family and no job. Through his obsessiveness, he gradually disintegrates Joe’s position in society, spoiling his marriage and work as he draws him into his “love”. Indeed, Jed even does a good job of disintegrating Joe’s mind.

Now there are thoughts here that are interesting, like the way that Joe’s conviction that Jed is stalking him and dangerous is shared by nobody, so that we see as he falls away from social groups just how fragile our position in society can be. But again, there’s rather too much going on. We don’t need attempted murder to make these points. While I wouldn’t want to stress the point too much, there is a sense for me that in a serious book using shocking action like this is almost like the novelist is saying that they don’t trust themselves to hold my attention otherwise. (Which is probably true of this book).

I felt like Iris Murdoch struggled with a similar problem in A Fairly Honourable Defeat, which shares with Enduring Love its focus on people who I went to school with or who my mother occasionally has round for tea. Murdoch’s novel seems at first to be the story of a demonic figure who manipulates a group of friends to ruin their relationships, as if by magic. Using words like “haunted,” “demons”, “materialises”, Murdoch creates an atmosphere or uneasy horror in spite of an essentially extremely bougie London setting. Yet when the time comes to have consequential action, those moments that would prove that the demon were truly a hellish visitant, Murdoch refuses to allow anything like that before finally dismissing the mystery at the story’s close. Meanwhile, McEwan rushes to jump the proverbial shark. Neither approach is entirely satisfactory. The one brings in the unreal and surrenders to the real. The other seems real, but refuses to abide by reality’s rules.

In general, I suppose I just find my people boring. I try to be a well-behaved writer and pay attention, but so far as I am aware there has been not one interesting story taking place around me in that circle in all the years of my life. (My time in Russia is another story). No cheating, no problems which are not immediately thrown under the rug, pure bourgeois stability, punctuated occasionally by death or mental decline, complaining over inheritance, but nothing more than that. That’s not to say I cannot write stories from the material I’m given. But the stuff of old novels, society scandal and the like, is essentially absent. The problem, one of them anyway, is that in Enduring Love McEwan doesn’t seem to trust either himself or his readers. The novel could work just as well as a slow burn, a gradual breakdown in sanity, a growing sense of menace. Instead, McEwan feels the need here to have every chapter be dramatic like a cheap thriller, to show love from so many angles, so that it’s far too busy a work to be an interesting one.

That’s not to say that there are not things I admired in the work. One part I liked is the novel’s ending, not what it says so much as how it says it. As with Lolita, where if we want to know Lo’s true fate we must read the parts where Humbert Humbert’s narration stops rather carefully, here too we have an appendix that gives more closure to everyone’s story than the section of Joe’s narrative does, while concealing its actual significance under the appearance of an article in a medical journal.

There is also the hard-to-dismiss fact that the book does work hard to establish tension, and as novelists are supposed to make their works entertaining, this is a good place to learn it. The first chapter is not that dull conversation business that animates the start of War and Peace, for example. (/s) Here, it’s pure energy, suggesting that we needn’t care about characters if the story is exciting enough. And as for that beginning, it’s also a good example of a way to draw out a morally complex theme from a conceivable real-world situation. It’s just that McEwan, for mysterious reasons, chooses to leave this theme in the background rather than the foreground.

Overall, your blogger shrugs his shoulders. I felt this was a busy book, with uninteresting characters and a silly plot. It was a contemporary story – I could tell at once how much the work was written under the sensible eyes (and scalpel) of a sensible editor, or even the ghost of one, tutting at the thought of an opening that did not grip, of anything that might lose the reader’s attention and do something so irrelevant as add depth to themes. Yet unlike the contemporary fiction of people like Sally Rooney or Patricia Lockwood, where even if I have my complaints I still am excited by the opportunities for reflecting our changed relation with the world under the effects of an ever more pervasive technology, I did not feel McEwan wrote a book that was contemporary in the deeper sense of telling me something about my world which I did not already know. (A classic, of course, can be a thousand years old and still manage this). Enduring Love, instead, feels already dated. Or, to be blunt, it’s a book which apart its opening, will probably not endure.

Blog note: the recent paucity of blog posts is due to two factors. First, my bag, containing my laptop and other quite useful items like the heavily annotated books I was aiming to write about (apologies to the reader who recommended Cusk – both Transit and Kudos are gone but there might still be a post on Outline), was stolen on the train. Second, I was struck by inspiration and wrote the first draft of a novel in the past two months, some 110000 words. This necessarily has to take precedence over other forms of writing, and indeed living.

Anyway, should be back to slightly more regularly updates from now ish.

Strange Ways of Making Real – The French Lieutenant’s Woman

The French Lieutenant’s Woman is a novel that I cannot imagine leaving any of us cold. It is a bag of tricks with multiple endings and a chatty modern narrator who refuses to let his characters be. Yet from its title onwards we are also led to expect something Victorian. That John Fowles delivers something much stranger than just another bulky Victorian monster is the cause of either our joy or our dismay. At first, I was in the latter camp, bothered by references to Henry Moore, taxpayers, and public loos that did not at all make sense with the novel’s 1867 setting. Later, the only words I had for my readerly experience were “breathless”, “excited” and “inspired.” The novel does something any writer can be grateful for – it shows that novels can still be novel, and that there are new games to play with readers while telling important stories.

For this post, my interest in the novel concerns its relationship with character and reality construction. Fowles takes some major risks with his storytelling, pulling us out of the narrative repeatedly through epigraphs, a digressive narrator who isn’t sure of his characters’ hearts, and through being inconclusive by providing readers with a choice of conclusions. Yet though Fowles is clear that this is a work of fiction, he is also clear that these characters are no less real for it. Our own lives, he points out in one chapter, are full of delusions and fiction. Yet we are sure they are real.

I want to argue that Fowles achieves the extraordinary here. For me, the artifice of the novel, with its postmodern flourishes, makes its story and people more real, at least to me. While spoiling much of the novel’s plot, I hope to explain what I mean.

The Story

First, though, the plot, so that I might contextualise at least somewhat the games and tricks of The French Lieutenant’s Woman. In Lyme Regis, gentleman Charles Smithson is spending time with his betrothed, Erestina Freeman, when they come across Sarah Woodruff, a “fallen woman” and the French lieutenant’s woman of the novel’s title. (He seduced her and then left her). Charles falls in love, though it takes him time to know it, and has several coincidental and then less coincidental meetings with Sarah, before finally breaking his engagement with Erestina.

While breaking it off, however, Charles loses track of Sarah and struggles to find her for the next two years while drifting around the world as a social outcast himself. Eventually, he does – the former governess is now an artists’ assistant, and has given birth to Charles’ daughter. Depending on the reader’s preferred ending, Charles and Sarah either make up, or Charles leaves to continue with his wandering. The novel’s other ending, some time earlier, is the one where Charles breaks his relationship with Sarah to be with Erestina and has a boring domestic happiness, or thinks he has, anyway.

Less an Unreliable than a Poor Narrator

Writers claim, from time to time, that their characters get away from them and do their own thing. (Iris Murdoch, I think, said charmingly if tellingly, that she kept them locked up and deprived them of even the slightest freedom from her plans). John Fowles seems the only writer to claim it from within the bounds of his own story – for The French Lieutenant’s Woman has a strange narrative voice. Or perhaps “startling” is a better word. The narrator is speaking to us of 1867, but from the perspective of 1967, talking freely about the sexual revolution ongoing in his own time, mentioning artists and other figures born long after the novel ends. How, we might wonder, can such a voice create characters who feel real, when it so openly notes that they are fictional, and does not even pretend to be from their own time? (“This story I am telling is all imagination. These characters I create never existed outside my own mind.”)

Certainly, we know that these are fictions, just as we know that we are reading fiction. But what is true of all the techniques I mention in this post is that somehow they work in a way contrary to what we might expect, by bringing us closer to the characters and making them more real. The narrator claims he does not know what Sarah thinks at key moments. He leaves blanks and decides which of the final two endings we read first by a coin flip. He seems, on the whole, out of control.

So, who is in control? If it is the characters, that only makes them more interesting and real to us – they then have their own lives, their own emotions driving them. Even if we disagree with the narrator’s assessment of his abilities, the whole novel seems like it has been ripped open so that the inner machinery is visible to us. Instead of reading from afar, we are made to identify with the narrator as we too try to construct the story and its world inside our heads. We can think of there being three layers of participation in a story – one is as a character, one is on the level of the narrator, within the story but yet also with a certain distance and perspective, and the final layer is of a disinterested observer who can leave at any time. This is the reader. Therefore, if we are with the narrator, we are already closer than we normally would be.

We might think that we are closer to the story when we just read a straight narrative. It might seem more like it actually happened, if it is written well and we are of a believing bent. But only here do we feel close enough to it that the narrator can reach out and tap us on the back. Only through an honesty about the story he is telling – a piece of historical fiction with his contemporary narration – and by making the fiction obvious as he constructs it, does the narrator put us beside him. At the same time, by relinquishing obvious control over the characters’ destinies, he does make it seem as though they are acting for themselves – fictional beings, yet with real autonomy. With readers getting so close to him, we are more likely to trust his words about his lack of control, compared to if he were just pretending to lack control at one key moment. It feels more authentic.

Epigraphs

Each chapter in The French Lieutenant’s Woman is headed by at least one, and quite often two, epigraphs, a practice I most associate with Middlemarch, but which is by no means unique to it. Fowles quotes poets and writers like Hardy, Tennyson and Arnold, and also thinkers like Marx and Darwin, and social documents and historians. Such epigraphs set the tone of the chapter, for example by informing us that this one will be about duty, that one about the pressures on young women to marry, and still the other about Darwin’s theories of evolution. They show, undoubtedly, Fowles’ deep knowledge of the period – never amiss, when trying to write a kind of historical fiction.

But how does this relate to creating real characters? After all, you can research all you want, but that does not always mean you have the faintest idea of the true soul of a period or a people. If anything, at first glance at least, the epigraphs are a problem. They draw us out of the fantasy by reminding us we are reading a novel every time we start a chapter, rather than letting us race along with the narrative, and by giving us some guidelines on how to analyse the story (with Marx, for example, encouraging a Marxist reading) rather than just leaving us to it.  

Yet what this ultimately does is help the reader to become more involved. If we see the epigraphs and know we can use them to analyse, we will start analysing as we read. As we will see in this post, all of Fowles’s tricks we can understand as aiming at making the reader get herself engaging with what she’s reading. Instead of blindly turning the pages, now we are forced to think – about class, about gender, about duty. This focusing of attention means we get closer to the characters. They become more real to us as we question their motives and their correspondence to the epigraphs provided. Just as at school, reading a book closely for an exam means that often years later, sadly or joyously, parts of it will remain with us, so too does Fowles repeat the exercise in miniature by ensuring we do our own close reading for him.

There is another point here, related to the historical quotes and Fowles’ reading. He points out at one point that his goal is not to make the reader believe their narrator is from 1867, merely that the narrative is set then. By showing his reading, and being honest about his modern perspective looking back, The French Lieutenant’s Woman is marked by a kind of authenticity that other historical fiction lacks. It is a small point, sure, but not entirely immaterial that when reading it we do not have that sense that we are reading a pretence or lie, which we may do, in the backs of our minds, as we read something else.

Multiple Endings

The French Lieutenant’s Woman has three endings, and this too, strange to say, seems to add to its verisimilitude. In the first ending, Charles receives the address of the hotel Sarah is staying at in Exeter and chooses, as he passes through that town, not to see her. In the second and third endings, Charles does see her for a night of passion, has his years of wanderings, and finally meets her again. In one ending he and she reunite in love, in another he condemns her and leaves her alone.

Within the novel Fowles’s narrator is keen to stress his lack of control, even at times his lack of knowledge. The use of multiple endings only furthers this point. Placed in the position of the narrator, readers do not know what the characters will do. Normally, disengaged, we trust the writers to lead us along a logical path. But by presenting us with three endings, readers are forced to place themselves closer to the action as they determine which ending they consider more likely.

Reading is an active process, unlike watching a movie, because we have to imagine the characters. But where much of the time we can get away with merely visualising action, in The French Lieutenant’s Woman we are forced to imagine motive. Not from what is said explicitly, but from the cumulative impact of so many chapters. We must decide for ourselves whether Charles surrenders to the pressures of his age and chooses to marry Erestina, whether he and Sarah come together, or whether he finally rejects her. To come to such a decision, we need to think and imagine. It is a gamble, as everything in The French Lieutenant’s Woman is. If we do not care for the characters, we will dismiss it as a trick. If we do, however, then suddenly we are placed in the same position as the author who finds his characters acting in ways he does not expect. And if the characters seem real to the author, they will seem just as real to us, in his position.

The pair of ultimate endings, where Charles and Sarah meet again, is interesting in another way from the perspective of characterisation. Here we have an explicitly doubled chapter, where the characters behave in opposite manners which are yet consistent with their prior depictions. The emphasis, inevitably, is on Sarah, and why she does not reach out to Charles after he puts so much effort into tracking her down. Unlike Charles, who the narration mainly follows, Sarah is the central figure of the story, whose image at the pier in Lyme first inspired Fowles to write it – and whose character is something of a mystery. Generally, we might think that consistency makes for good characterisation, but real people are anything but consistent. Sarah’s two behaviours in the epilogue make her more mysterious and inconsistent, yet more curious to us, more real.

It seems that using multiple endings like this is not a cheat for establishing an interesting character or someone real, but rather a way of emphasising certain types of figures beyond what is possible in a novel’s normal bounds. It makes them, the mysterious ones, more real. But readers must first be engaged, otherwise playing with endings will sooner leave them enraged.

Conclusion

If the thoughts here can be summarised simply, that’s more a reflection on how much sleep I am getting, and not on Fowles’s novel, which is really exciting. Fowles is far from the only writer to understand that making your reader work works brilliantly, provided they can be bothered to put the effort in, in creating a more engaging narrative. By making us choose endings, analyse the text with the help of the epigraphs, and fill in the gaps in characters’ motivations when the narrator claims not to know, readers play a far more active role in The French Lieutenant’s Woman than I am certainly used to doing.

Still, none of this would mean anything if the characters did not themselves have a baseline of realistic characterisation, and characters worth knowing about. What we see in this novel is not a replacement to all that, but a way of bringing us still closer to the fictional world – but only once we’ve first written it and written it and its people well.