Customer Reviews

A Maggot

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The first half or so of this novel is very good: I found the characters interesting, the detail vivid and the plot gripping. It did seem to me here and there that the author tries a bit too hard to surprise and rouse curiosity, but still the result in this first half is effective and suspenseful: I found myself completely involved with Mr. Bartholomew's mysterious journey, and even more intrigued by Mr. Bartholomew himself and his deaf and dumb servant Dick. I was sure the nature of the strange relationship between servant and master would be explained in detail, and would play a substantial part in the unfolding of the enigma.

In short the novel promised to continue as a successful blend of historical literature and gripping mystery. However as I went on reading I started to get the impression that Fowles didn't quite know what to do with the plot; after Lacy's deposition the digressions become more and more frequent, while the story loses its focus. It's as if the author is forcing himself to add words and pages to a book he is losing control upon. Fortunately even these digressions are well written and informative, so that something is still gained by the reading.

****** SPOILER ALERTS ******

This dissatisfaction turned into frustration as I reached the end of the novel. It is clear that Rebecca's account of what happened in the cavern is the true one, although couched in highly mystical terms; this is clear because she tells of things which she can know nothing about, but we modern readers can recognize (an aircraft of some kind, with landing gear, portholes, a cabin full of buttons and dials and a big video screen on one of the walls.) But this science-fictional theme is poorly done, with little or no detail or background. The reference to Stonehenge is trite and, above all, the apparent motive of this visit from the future -- the conception of Ann Lee -- is ridiculous.

Another source of frustration is that not enough is told about Mr. Bartholomew and his background, or about Dick and his bond with his master. Most of the curiosity-raising episodes presented in the first part (burning of books, violets in the mouth of the dead servant etc.) are never explained; they are probably baits used to hook the reader and keep him reading on.

John Fowles states more than once that this book is a "maggot", in the sense of whim or quirk; I suspect this is an a posteriori apologetic remark to cover the essential hollowness of the novel, to justify the building of an elaborate stage whose worth is more than the drama enacted on it.

Anyhow the novel has some redeeming qualities: the prose is excellent, the narrative technique original, and, as far as I can tell, reproduces well enough the language and life of the 18th century.

The vividly literate John Fowles is a fine writer but what ON earth was this book about? I read an interview where he commented that one day he would like to create "a maze constructed of literature" and perhaps that's the explanation for A Maggot, a novel that seems to begin as a straightforward, near-perfectly written tale set in the eighteenth century (roughly halfway between the Glorious and French Revolutions) but eventually becomes a science fiction-ish brain tease that doesn't exactly make much sense.

I THINK this was the story of a young 18th century Lord, a man steeped in occult and arcane lore, who, while mysteriously journeying on the muddy roads of western England with a few of his retainers and a hired prostitute, was taken into the distant, utopian future by a time traveler, and the Lord's father has hired a strong-arm investigator to learn what happened to his rebellious son, but..I'm not sure. This book was THAT nebulous. At first it begins well with its precise descriptions of a traveler's life in the 1730's, but it branches off into asides about civil disturbances in the north of Britain, and then shifts into...whatever it becomes. At the end Shakerism, hardly a world-changing religion, is foretold in an unenlightening aside, and there seems some hint that perhaps either the missing Lord or a man from the distant, peaceful future of earth, fathered, 'Mother Ann,' the founder of that now extinct cult.

Fowles' books always make intellectual demands on the reader, but I fear he may have left too much out in this case for us to piece together what he means.

Read this book, named after an archaic colloquialism for a riddle or puzzle, if you're an ardent admirer of John Fowles, if you like to visit recreations of the eighteenth-century, or if you think anything I've said in this review sounds welcoming, but be advised that this is an incompletely explained story that is frustrating and not wholeheartedly worth the time, sad to say.

This is one of the best books that I've read. I enjoyed The Magus very much, but A Maggot proved to be even better. A mixture of history, religion, sex and weird structure, the novel actually opens much deeper questions of religion, sense of life, or emancipation of women. I took this novel to read it while on holiday, but I finished it in two days and every other book I tried to read afterwards seemed boring.

*A Maggot* contains the first bad writing I've seen from John Fowles. I hadn't thought he was capable of it. But he responds to the apparently irresistible temptation of British general fiction writers of the past 20-30 years -- he's just got to write SF. If you skip the SFnal parts (the Stonehenge "flyby" and Rebecca Lee's Ming-the-Merciless-esque testimony about the "June Eternal" people) it's a tremendous book, as unified a work as any of Fowles' others, very rich and thought-provoking. Readers not familiar with good SF may not object to Rebecca Lee's testimony. It is, however, hackneyed and illogical, not due to the 18th century filter, but due to the original vision which is being portrayed. Thomas More did somewhat better in 1516. The poor man is not even credited, which is so unlike John Fowles. I'm joking here - I can't understand the "Ancient Astronauts" inclusion in this book - otherwise, it is so good.

Over the years, I have read a surprising number of John Fowles' books. I say surprising since I would not call him one of my favorite authors. I doubt that I have ever made any special effort to look for his work. Still, somehow his books end up in my "to be read pile". To date, I have gotten through The Magus (whatever), The French Lieutenant's Woman (pretty good), The Collector (bleah) and The Ebony Tower (okay). Of all those books, A Maggot is my favorite to date.

It's the kind of historical fiction that I actually enjoy. I like very much the way that Fowles employs different devices (interviews, letters, news articles) to keep reminding us of the narrative distance. He does his homework, but both the style and the subject matter effectively resist making us believe it "real". There is a nice mix of history, detail, speculation and psychology. As a reader, I had a solid Rashomon-style view of the little party and what become of them on their journey.

Ann Lee is a fascinating subject, however indirectly. I also really like the conceit of the maggot. (Fowles means an obsession, but also comes around to the more modern literal meaning later in the book.)

However, I do have an overall issue with Fowles as a writer that remains an issue with this book. I am willing to admit that this may well be more to my discredit than to his. My challenge is that I am left once again with the feeling that I do not really understand what the book is for. I found it entertaining enough, and even thought-provoking and admirable. Unfortunately, I am fairly sure that I am not well understanding what the book was really intended to say. There are some books where one can safely assume that the book was not really meant to say anything. I do not have that feeling with A Maggot. Instead, I have the sinking feeling that there is a point here-- and one that I am rather entirely missing. Perhaps it is simply the point that he makes in the Epilogue about religion. But then again I think that it is also more than that. I have never re-read any of his novels, and perhaps that is where I should begin next.

In all, as I have found of his works before, admirable and a little bit frustrating.

I first discovered John Fowles almost 40 years ago, when I happily stumbled upon a paperback version of "The Magus". Since then, I have read a number of books by him, and thoroughly enjoyed every one, especially "The French Lieutenant's Woman" and "Daniel Martin". I was so impressed by those two novels. in fact, that I placed Mr. Fowles in my personal top tier of modern writers. A number of years went by, however, during which time I lost track of Mr. Fowles, and of fictional writing in general. But a couple of years ago, I was gifted with a copy of "A Maggot". I sat down to read it with great anticipation - only to find myself growing to absolutely HATE the book. Yes, Mr. Fowles was every bit the wordsmith he once was, and a technically brilliant writer. But I found the book to be muddled, and unconvincing, and maddening in its inscrutability. I read the book to completion, and still had no idea of what the novel was all about. It was a little like watching the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", minus the genius of that work. "A Maggot" was confusing, bizarre, disjoint, and tiresome. Worse yet, I felt Mr. Fowles had merely been going through the motions, and not really caring much about the final product. I felt insulted, angry, and tremendously saddened. What a colossal disappointment!

Almost as good as The Magus, if such a thing were possible. In many ways Fowles' most systematic work. We are constantly led from confusion to insight in a gripping and revelatory manner. I was continually saying "Now I get it!" only to discover I was being led by Fowles genius down yet another blind but fascinating alley. The book is captivating from the first chapter as bleak travelers wander a bleak and mysterious landscape...A brilliant and imaginative work

"A Maggot" is John Fowles' sixth major novel. Its title is based on the archaic expression for a "whim" or a "quirk," but another meaning emerges towards the end of the novel. As a "quirk," the novel is somewhat more idiosyncratic and indulgent in weird and at times incoherent plot developments, and one cannot but help feeling that Fowles wrote it more as a form of self-indulgence than a clearly formulated piece of work. Nonetheless, the novel has all of the characteristics that we have come to associate with Fowles' works: highly refined literary style, incisive perception of human psychology, and mastery of different historical settings.

The novel takes place in eighteenth century England, primarily in the year 1736. At the beginning we encounter the five main protagonists as they are traveling on horseback through rural England. When they stop at an Inn to spend the night there, we realize that they are not quite the persons that they pretend to be, and that they are involved in a secretive and not very reputable mission. At this point, however, the main narrative part of the novel breaks off and we only gradually come to learn of what the travelers' true intention was and what really happened in the subsequent days. The rest of the novel is written in the form of eighteenth century newspaper pages, interrogation proceedings, letters, and an occasional spur of narrative. Apparently some sort of foul play has taken place, one of the travelers has been found dead, and their leader (who we find out was an important member of aristocracy) has gone missing. We gradually learn more and more about the true nature of the events that have transpired, and closer we get to the truth the more unbelievable it appears. Towards the end this novel assumes a truly fantastical dimension, but as most of the events that had been narrated come through second-hand sources (only one of which seems to have been present at all the times) it is not entirely clear if they had not been some sort of very elaborate illusion. In the short epilogue John Fowles describes how he was fascinated with the life of Ann Lee - a leading figure in the early Shaker movement and purportedly the daughter of one of the protagonists in "A Maggot." The connection to this real historical figure and Shakerism in particular, is tenuous at best. The last parts of the novel and Fowles' "explanation" leave a lot to be desired, and we are left with a decidedly unsatisfactory feeling. This is certainly not one of Fowles' best novels, but it is nonetheless fairly entertaining. It is also stylistically and technically well done, the faulty plotline notwithstanding. All fans of John Fowles writing will certainly find a lot to appreciate in "A Maggot."

I have read this one twice and am about to start again. It's a great ride, skillfully historical and with some suprising elements. A revealing portrait of several characters interviewed about the same event, all dialogue and some very tricky words. An excellent book for discussion groups and something that would readily translate to the small screen. The last hundred pages may not please everyone, but what novel does please everyone. Scanning these previous reviews shows much more about the readers. Recommended for those seeking something different.

What a strange book. Having just finished this story, I find myself being unsure entirely what to make of it, I do not entirely think that it is successful, but it is imaginative and inventive and it goes to places which I was not entirely expecting.

To give an overview of the story, five people ride into a town in Devon in 1736. On first appearance they are a wealthy elderly gentleman, his young noble but poor nephew, a man servant and ladies maid and a guard on a mission to secure the nobleman an income via an assignation with a local woman. Several days later the man servant is found hung and the rest of the travelers have disappeared.

From this point we learn that the nobleman was in fact the youngest son of a very important peer and that none of the other travelers were what they initially appeared. The rest of the story is in the form an investigation undertaken by a lawyer who is an employee of said peer, to determine what transpired on the journey and the ultimate fate of his employers son, a well educated and thoughtful man who had recently been study a range of very esoteric philosophies. In the process of this investigation the lawyer finds and interrogates the three surviving members of the party, each of whom tells wildly divergent stories including a visitation from the devil and what appears to be time travelers in a UFO from an idealistic and peaceful future.

At the end of "A Maggot" many important facets remain unexplained, which is extremely frustrating but in keeping with the logic of the story, given that the three remaining view point characters are poorly educated and steeped in a tradition of explaining all unusual experiences or phenomena from a religious view point. The only person who could fill in the missing pieces is his Lordship, who remains the one participant whose story we never hear.

One of the many interesting elements that Fowles touches on in "A Maggot" is the relationship between his Lordship and his mute servant Dick, who it is suggested are the two disconnected "Manichaeist" halves of a single human nature with his Lordship being that which is spiritual and intellectual while Dick is the primal, base material side of our nature.

A stimulating is ultimately frustrating story.