Diceman
05-02-2004, 10:21 PM
Hi folks
I have been working my way through Fowles' literature of late, and completed "The Magus" a couple of weeks ago.
Like all his books, I found the story to be thoroughly absorbing. Once picked up, I'd work through large swathes of it before stopping for a break. Much of the story rang very true for me. Fowles perfectly captured the psyche of an aimless twentysomething male - no discernible roots, no goals, looking for the next big thing. I've heard that The Magus is best read as a young adult, but I reckon a lot of it would have gone past me. Now as a thirty-two year old I see the relevance to young adults a lot better than I would have done back then.
Unlike Fowles other books, this time I'm left with one burning feeling: exactly what was the point of it all? I think I picked up the major themes well enough: Conchis' "godgame" was ultimately a lesson in freedom, in being responsible for one's own path. At some point one must cease becoming and start being. I appreciate that Fowles left the ending open to interpretation in order that the reader might read his own insights into it all - and I guess that's what I'm trying to do now. I have gone back and re-read a number of passages in an effort to better understand it all.
The third part, through which Nicholas tried to explain the whole affair via detective work, seemed hollow to me: surely one of Conchis' bigger lessons was that actively looking for reasons would produce nothing? Nicholas himself came to this conclusion when returning to "The Earth" after the affair, so why does he blatantly ignore the lesson?
By the end of the "godgame", it was impossible to tell what was real and what was not. This unreality spilled over into Nicholas' life back in London. Is this the great message of the novel? That there is no objective reality, that a manufactured situation is no less valid or invalid than a "real" one, and that one has to live with one's accepted reality as best one can?
In the foreword, Fowles mentioned that the book was like a Rorschach test: what it meant was exactly what the perceiver saw in it. So I'm keen to hear what other people got out of the story. Anyone else out there got some thoughts they'd like to share?
I have been working my way through Fowles' literature of late, and completed "The Magus" a couple of weeks ago.
Like all his books, I found the story to be thoroughly absorbing. Once picked up, I'd work through large swathes of it before stopping for a break. Much of the story rang very true for me. Fowles perfectly captured the psyche of an aimless twentysomething male - no discernible roots, no goals, looking for the next big thing. I've heard that The Magus is best read as a young adult, but I reckon a lot of it would have gone past me. Now as a thirty-two year old I see the relevance to young adults a lot better than I would have done back then.
Unlike Fowles other books, this time I'm left with one burning feeling: exactly what was the point of it all? I think I picked up the major themes well enough: Conchis' "godgame" was ultimately a lesson in freedom, in being responsible for one's own path. At some point one must cease becoming and start being. I appreciate that Fowles left the ending open to interpretation in order that the reader might read his own insights into it all - and I guess that's what I'm trying to do now. I have gone back and re-read a number of passages in an effort to better understand it all.
The third part, through which Nicholas tried to explain the whole affair via detective work, seemed hollow to me: surely one of Conchis' bigger lessons was that actively looking for reasons would produce nothing? Nicholas himself came to this conclusion when returning to "The Earth" after the affair, so why does he blatantly ignore the lesson?
By the end of the "godgame", it was impossible to tell what was real and what was not. This unreality spilled over into Nicholas' life back in London. Is this the great message of the novel? That there is no objective reality, that a manufactured situation is no less valid or invalid than a "real" one, and that one has to live with one's accepted reality as best one can?
In the foreword, Fowles mentioned that the book was like a Rorschach test: what it meant was exactly what the perceiver saw in it. So I'm keen to hear what other people got out of the story. Anyone else out there got some thoughts they'd like to share?