As John Fowles is more in favor to give freedom to his characters and let them choose their own path, he doesn’t claim to be a ‘God’ for his characters. In other words, to be free myself, I must give Charles, and Tina, and Sarah, even the abominable Mrs. Poulteney, their freedoms as well. There is only one good definition of God: the freedom that allows other freedoms to exist. And I must conform to that definition. (page 95-96). He is not omniscient who knows everything about Charles’ mind that where he is going and why, or his feeling concerning the dilemma that among Ernestina, his already engaged fiancée, and Sarah whom he would choose. Even Sarah Woodruff’s character is as mysterious to the narrator as it is for readers themselves, the fact which clearly discloses in Fowles own remark “my most individual character is a mystery to me”. Throughout the novel, the readers or perhaps the narrator himself, do not get a slightest hint of what is going on Sarah’ mind until at the end she asserts her individuality and freedom which she was trying to attain from the very beginning itself. 2.3 SARAH WOODRUFF: ROLE MODEL TO “EXISTENTIALISM” AND FREEDOM I could not marry that man (the French …show more content…
The two alternate endings are not possible for a narration that should adhere to the laws of verisimilitude but John Gardner in The Art of Fiction provides some relief to just such an argument: “The reality of the world of the tale, in other words, is that of a moral universe. What ought to happen, possible or not, does happen” (73). He states, what should happen does happen. And moreover in the very beginning, Fowles states that “I must conform to the definition of freedom for me as well as for my characters” and shows the pleasure that he finds in allowing his words to break from convention that has been almost shown on every page, especially at the close of the book with two separate endings for Charles and