The Collector

by John Fowles. (1963) Published by Dell. 255 pages.

Reviewed 21 October 2008


I decided to change my reading habits a little. Normally, I try to read switch directions as often as possible, to jump from classical to contemporary authors, from fiction to nonfiction and so on as often as possible. But I decided to see what it would be like to focus on one author whom I like a lot. After being so bowled over last year by The Magus, I decided to go back to John Fowles and find out what else he’s written.
The Collector is a book whose subject is so dark—it tells the story the kidnapping of a girl by a young man with a distinctly bland set of sociopathic tendencies—that it’s hard to say “Oh, I just love that book” without depicting oneself as something of a pervert.
While the scenario itself has all the lurid elements of captivity and depravity that are celebrated today in the mythology built up around Hannibal Lecter or the Saw series of movies, it’s notable that there are no scenes of outright torture in this book. The kidnapper, who adopts the false name Ferdinand, goes out of his way to create a comfortable environment for his captive. Does that mitigate his crime or does it serve rather to underscore the fact that no amount of comfort can serve as compensation for the crime of depriving an innocent of her freedom.
There’s something essentially acidic in John Fowles. I think he knew deep down the strident, judgmental direction that literary criticism was headed in, the way that young students especially are encouraged to condemn first and foremost to condemn the author. I think that at some level the sly and Machiavellian Fowles not only anticipated this trend, but he also decided quite deliberately in this, his first published novel, to offer himself up as a sort of intentional sacrifice, and then to profit from the confusion of those who would condemn him.
The first knee-jerk reaction of today’s critic would be to condemn Fowles for writing the ultimate puerile male fantasy novel, a masturbatory wish fulfillment of a man who seeks only to possess a woman, to own her as an object without ever recognizing her as a person.
The second part of the novel takes the form of the diary of “Ferdinand’s” captive Miranda. It is clear after only a short time that Miranda has a far greater claim to the author’s sympathies, and this must give the lie to the knee-jerk condemnation of the book laid out above. If Miranda were to principally define herself as Ferdinand’s victim, if she developed the sort of subservient mentality that he would like to see in her, there might still be a strong case for condemning the book as an example of male objectification. But Miranda is surprisingly indifferent to the person of Ferdinand. Indeed, she’s quite contemptuous of him as a non-entity; she loathes his utter lack of aesthetics. The second part of the book hinges not so much on Miranda’s struggle for her freedom as her attempts to come to terms with her own identity as an artist. Her thoughts are characterized by the anxiety and self-absorption typical of any young artist, but as Miranda’s situation becomes direr it becomes clear that her real struggle is to move as quickly as possible away from her naiveté, to face the fact of her own limitations and come to terms with the facts of her own mortality without the luxury of the slow, ideal ripening processes that most souls in liberty would hope to enjoy.
The Wikipedia entry on this book describes Miranda as a snob. Is she really? Certainly, she’s aware that she’s been trained to look down on Ferdinand for his bluntness of wit and lack of education. But there’s also a deep welling of sympathy in her, an impetus to find redeeming qualities even in her captor.
John Fowles made no secret that he was an elitist, and our young critic eager for a cause to condemn this book might be torn between which character is the more worthy of the reader’s contempt. Does Ferdinand represent the ruling gender elite, or does Miranda represent the ruling cultural elite?
I think the central virtue in Fowles is that he realized the great potential in wandering into this sort of philosophical briar patch. He recognizes the almost visceral need of the reader to rush toward judgment, and he uses it as an engine for his own narrative tension. In some ways, this is a silly book, a little too obvious, with too many heavy-handed references to The Tempest and too much focus on Miranda’s mentor G.P. (Gentle Prospero?) a curmudgeonly and lecherous artist who’s enigmatic pronouncements are not nearly so profound as Fowles thinks they are. But I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants to see how paradox and uncertainty can bring a novel to life, and how the fundamental challenge to any reader is to withhold judgment enough that it’s possible to listen to what’s really being said.