the collector by john fowles: art, religion, class, etc.
a crazy but good read
I recently finished reading The Collector by John Fowles, a story about a strange, isolated, newly rich man that is obsessed with Miranda, an art student, to the point of kidnapping and holding her hostage. It’s quite short, only four chapters long, showing both Fred/Ferdinand/Caliban (the kidnapper)’s point of view and Miranda’s point of view. It’s set in England in the 60’s, a time period that I think allows the novel to expand on a lot of different ideologies. Although this seems like it would be a plot heavy book based on the premise, it’s much more introspective and full of social commentary.
I gave this book a 4.75/5 on the story graph. I love when an author can write two totally different yet equally convincing characters, and I think it’s fun when you get to read the different characters’ perspectives. I read another blog’s post about this book and was surprised that she seemed to dislike Miranda and preferred Frederick’s sections; I felt the opposite. I did however agree that the literary references only stuck if you had prior knowledge, and I too understand the reference to Emma by Jane Austin but not to anything Shakespeare-related that Miranda referenced. I think this is more so a time period difference, as I feel like 21st century American public school is not going to do as much with Shakespeare as a mid-century UK boarding school.
I annotated this heavily, especially Miranda’s parts, and thought it would be interesting to expand on some of the ideas I read.
Art vs Writing
Miranda discusses a writer that she doesn’t like, saying he’d be better as a painter because he puts down just what he sees, “says what he means.” But, to her, writing things in an enjoyable way isn’t enough to be a good writer. The following quote reminded me of discourse about how something being a satire and being recognized by the consumer as a satire can completely change things.
“Perhaps Alan Sillitoe wanted to attack the society that produces such people. But he doesn’t make it clear. I know what he’s done, he’s fallen in love with what he’s painting. He started out to paint it as ugly as it is, but then its ugliness conquered him, and he started to cheat. To prettify.”
This idea of cheating comes up again when she discusses writing in a diary:
'“But it’s vain. You write what you want to hear. It’s funny. You don’t do that when you draw yourself. No temptation to cheat.
I thought it was interesting how she clearly values both art forms, but she seems to think it’s harder to be genuine in writing. It seems like, for her, things like painting allow her to be more true, more real, and more herself. It’s like she trusts her artwork more than her writing. I can’t tell if she thinks this is true for all people or just herself. I think that it would be easy to find people on either side of this coin, who believe art is more truthful or writing is more truthful.
Finally, a quote I immediately bracketed off (from Fred’s POV):
“Do you know anything about art?” she asked
Nothing you’d call knowledge.
“I knew you didn’t. You wouldn’t imprison an innocent person if you did.”
Religion
Miranda goes full circle in her ideas of religion. She starts off by thinking that people ought to believe in god, then she believes there could be no god if he can allow such depravity, and then she prays to god to not die as she becomes very ill. She has some very interesting lines in this transition:
“[God] lets us suffer … There’s nothing human like hearing or seeing or pitying or helping about him … he can’t care about the individuals … who is sad, who is not, he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t care. So he doesn’t exist, really … I still believe in a God. But he’s so remote, so cold, so mathematical. I see that we have to live as if there is no God.”
“He hates us because he can’t love us.”
I thought it was really interesting and realistic how she changes her mind as her conditions worsen. When she has hope, she can believe. Then, once the realization of the horror of her reality truly hits, she spirals into this hole of despair and darkness. She is so angry, so she cannot believe. It makes no sense that such horrible things could happen and that God can let it happen. It’s like that quote about the fact that God is either all-knowing or all good, but not both. I think that if she heard that quote, especially during the scene above, she would agree with it. Later on, when she has nothing but desperation and fears she’s about to die, she begs again to God to let her live. Religion is such a touchy and overarching subject, so it was interesting to read how people’s experiences can influence and change how they feel about it.
Class
Miranda often speaks of the “New People,” which seems to be a sort of new money middle class. She often criticizes them, saying that a lot of them don’t really understand things because they just try to imitate the upper class and are satisfied once that’s achieved. Instead of having no money, they now have no soul.
She complains about them when she’s complaining about ignorant and dull people that don’t mind being that way. I think it’s interesting how she views this class of people, and I wonder if perhaps some of this contempt is there because of how old money tends not to be as accepting of new money (although she says she isn’t quite rich, but it seems like her family was never poor, so even if she’s just middle class it’s not like newly middle class). She and Fred, who she views as one of these “New People,” struggle to see eye to eye about this idea, even though it seems like they share some ideas. There’s a distance between them through misunderstanding and personal experience, and I’d say sometimes also insecurity.
She also repeats the view of a friend that “the honest poor are the money-less vulgar rich.” She thinks that it’s the poverty giving them their good qualities, and once their rich they forget these principles. This is of course exemplified by her situation, in which a formerly poor man comes into money and now has the ability to kidnap her. He even says that more people would do it too if they had the money.
I’m not sure what the implications are in this line of thinking though. She seems to think the middle class / new money are worse than the very rich and very poor, referencing how each class reacts to be asked for donations to charity. But she feels this way unless they’re intelligent. They can be redeemed through intelligence, in her eyes. By living the right way, not by “keeping up with the Joneses.” It almost seems like she thinks no one should have lots and lots of money as she encourages Fred to give his away to charities and such. I thought it was really interesting though to hear about her ideas of class and how they tie into people’s humanity. I don’t think you’re necessarily supposed to agree, but more so to think about the morality and such in the ideas of class.
I could probably go on about more of the quotes in the book, but I think I’ll end it here for now in terms of these themes. Let me know what you think about the book or the ideas I discussed! I intentionally tried to avoid major spoilers in case this made anyone want to pick up the book. If you have read it or plan on reading it, let me know your thoughts :)
ttyl,
emily
I really enjoyed how you contrasted art and writing, especially Miranda’s idea that painting feels more truthful because it avoids the 'prettifying' temptation that writing falls into. That notion of falling in love with ugliness was powerful—like how satire can lose its sting if misread. I also found Miranda’s shifting faith in God really compelling. Her doubts during suffering, and her return to belief out of desperation, felt deeply human. You’ve captured a lot of interesting contrasts—art vs. writing, belief vs. doubt, class differences—and it really made me reflect on how perspective shapes truth.