The French Lieutenant's Woman is a 1969 postmodern historical fiction novel by John Fowles, written in a dual narrative form alternating between the Victorian era and the present day. Currently, some literary debates surrounding the novel concern its validity as a feminist text. There are various obstacles in the novel in terms of character definition, the plot itself, and the authorial methods used by Fowles. The novel fails to realize some aspects of traditional Victorian feminist writing, the style in which the writer intended it to be interpreted. Sarah Woodruff is an obfuscated central figure as opposed to a strongly defined protagonist usually found in feminist texts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Can Sarah be said to be an “independent female protagonist”? Since the narrator acts in a voyeuristic almost manipulative manner, this leads us as readers to believe that Sarah is never autonomous as her thoughts remain outside of the novel. In this way, I feel that the narrator is unreliable as we are never fully given the opportunity to empathize with her due to the absence of her point of view. Magali Michael, an anti-feminist critic of the novel, argues that “if the novel is created within a masculine ideology and only male perspectives are allowed within the text, then it necessarily follows that its characters cannot transcend that male ideology". terms of our image of Sarah, the novelist fails to define her as a character, a human being; Fowles, the narrator, is male and chooses Charles as his true protagonist, so how can the novel reflect a "true feminist perspective"? The male dominance within the novel, in terms of creation and story, deliberately mirrors the male dominance of Victorian society where only men found themselves in occupations such as scientists, engineers and members of Parliament, positions of real power. Fowles chose to challenge the traditions of feminist literature in her novel in which she suggests that a male author is never able to adequately capture a woman's voice. Sarah's elusiveness is intentional for this reason, which forces me to ask: are we convinced of her? It lacks definition and therefore it is difficult to interpret its story to define feminist goals in the way feminist literature is known for. The real protagonist is Charles. The role of a protagonist encourages the reader to empathize and often sympathize. Like Charles, we find a sense of fascination in Sarah's mystery that makes us empathize with him that much more, which also makes the concept of alternate endings more exciting and intriguing for the reader. It could be argued that Sarah is more of a technique than a protagonist; a central figure who drives the plot forward, arousing an interest in Charles similar to that of his fossils, causing the reader to need to "study" her in the same way as Charles with his paleontology. He seems to learn from Sarah in the form of emotional growth; he travels from ignorance to understanding by following the woman he believes he is helping and she acts as a mentor to his self-realization. For example, we readers are as immediately drawn to Sarah in chapter 2 as Charles, when Fowles describes the pain on her face of having "flowed from it as purely and naturally and unstoppably as water from a spring in the woods." Although there is a juxtaposition in “pain” compared to the purity and beauty of nature, nature is described as harsh and violent. The use of the adjective “unstoppable” inrelationship to Sarah could be indicative of Charles's allure to be equally unstoppable. Like Charles, as readers this intrigues us, forcing us to wonder why his pain is so visible in his appearance, underlining Charles's starring role due to the fact that we readers empathize with him in fascination compared to Sarah.with her pain. Linking the novel to the Victorian era, Charles could be described as a representation of modernism, described as "always asking too many questions of life". This metaphor that questions the intangible noun of "life" reinforces Charles's intense fascination with mystery. Describing him as a philosophical thinker about the unknown of “life” and asking “too much” emphasizes the desire to study and learn, to the point of revealing a mystery more than necessary. This could foreshadow his relationship with Sarah, in the sense that perhaps it would have been better for their history to remain unknown. Charles considers himself a new rebellious thinker with his interest in Darwinian studies, his scientific academia in paleontology, and his anti-religious beliefs. He finds that “English society is too narrow, English solemnity too solemn, English thought too moralistic, English religion too sanctimonious.” This leads me to further disagree with the question as the novel almost seems to defy the style of a Victorian novel instead of following it, as its true protagonist apparently goes against all the typical ideals of a Victorian male. Another authorial method that brings Victorian society to our attention is the character who serves as a counterpoint to Ernestina's Sarah. Ernestina is the idealized woman of the Victorian era but unable to satisfy Charles' desire for mystery, seen in his fascination with Sarah. Fowles' use of opposing female characters demonstrates that Sarah has a sense of power over Charles, despite society deeming her damaged. Linking this to another fantastic piece of literature by John Fowles, his second novel The Collector, published in 1963, also explores the male and female dynamic. In The Collector, Frederick expresses a sinister desire to kidnap Miranda as his butterfly and force her to fall in love with him. While this doesn't match Charles' motivations, Sarah doesn't choose to be involved in Charles' life in the same way that Miranda's involvement is against her will. The similar feeling of being out of control seen in Miranda and Sarah emphasizes that Sarah is not an independent female protagonist, rather a technique that brings Charles' self-realization to the surface in a similar way to Frederick in The Collector. However, Sarah demonstrates that she has already come to the awareness that she cannot escape the constraints that society has imposed on her. Her choice to simply accept being an outcast for love, as demonstrated by the novel's title and her nickname "The French Lieutenant's Whore", demonstrates the damage that Victorian society had done to women. Fowles uses Ernestina to show the ideals that Victorian society valued and if they did not fit into them women were forced to become outcasts, deemed unworthy of the future that women like Ernestina were entitled to. This forces me to disagree that Sarah is “independent” as she is not in control of her own life and future. Therefore, she cannot make her own decisions independently as the circumstances Sarah faces are strictly due to what Victorian society led her to experience in her position as an "outcast", which can be emphasized by the reader's responsibility to decide his fate with alternative endings..