Fowles allows us only a very limited certainty about Sarah’s motives. We can see that she plans, but as to the extent of her plans and as to the motives of her plans, Fowles leaves us with an enigma [italics in original] Tony E. Jackson, Charles and the Hopeful Monster: Postmodern Evolutionary Theory in The French Lieutenant’s Woman
How important is it for the construction of the character that Sarah remains an enigma? Would you agree with Jackson that a postmodern version of evolution can best explain the enigma? How so?
