Wojciech Boryszewski
The Literary Portrayal of the
Madonna-Whore Complex in John Fowles’s Novels "The Colector" and
"The Magus"
Prace Literaturoznawcze 2, 215-230
2014
2014 215-230
Wojciech B oryszew ski
UW M w O lsztynie
T he L itera ry P o rtra y a l o f th e M adonna-W hore C om p lex in J o h n F o w le s’s N o v els
The C ollector an d The M agus
L iter a ck i obraz z e sp o łu m a d o n n y i la d a c zn ic y
w p o w ie ś c ia c h J o h n a F o w le s a K o le k c jo n e r i M a g
Key words: Fowles, madonna, whore, Freud Słow a kluczow e: Fowles, madonna, ladacznica, Freud
Where such men love they have no desire and where they desire they cannot love.
S. Freud, “A Special Type o f Object Choice Made by Men” (1910) W hile w ritin g h is novels, J o h n F o w les1 w a s s tro n g ly in flu en c ed by v a rio u s scien tific th e o rie s, esp ecially th o se o f S ig m u n d F re u d a n d C arl G u sta v J u n g . A lth o u g h a lo t o f critica l p a p e rs h av e a lre a d y b ee n w ritte n a b o u t F re u d ia n a n d J u n g ia n in flu e n c e s on F o w les’s o eu v re2, n o t m u ch critical a tte n tio n h a s b ee n given to th e p h en o m en o n k no w n a s th e m ado nn a- w hore com plex, originally c re a te d by F re u d , a n d fu r th e r developed by o th e r
1 J o h n R o b e rt F o w les (1 9 2 6 -2 0 0 5 ) w a s a B r itis h w r ite r e d u c a te d a t O xford a n d s p e c ia liz in g in F r e n c h l ite r a tu r e . H is o e u v re is n o t s u b s ta n tia l, a s h e w ro te o n ly a few novels:
T h e C ollector (1963), T h e M a g u s (1966, re v is e d v e rs io n 1977), D a n ie l M a r tin (1977), T he F ren ch L ie u te n a n t’s W o m a n (1969), M a n tis s a (1982), A M a g g o t (1985). H e is a lso th e a u th o r o f T h e A r is to s (1964) - a bo o k o f p h ilo s o p ic a l e s s a y s - a n d a c o llectio n o f s h o rt s to rie s e n title d T h e E b o n y Tow er (1974). H e a ls o w ro te p o e m s a n d boo k s o f n o n -fictio n , in c lu d in g h is jo u r n a ls , b u t h e e a r n e d h is a c c la im t h a n k s to h is n o v els, th r e e o f w h ic h - T h e C ollec
tor, T h e M a g u s a n d T h e F ren ch L ie u te n a n t’s W o m a n - h a v e b e e n a d a p te d o n sc ree n . H is w r itin g sty le w a s h e te ro g e n e o u s a n d e a c h o f h is boo k s is d iffe re n t fro m th e o th e rs . L ite r a ry c ritic s o fte n p lac e h im b e tw e e n tr a d i t io n a n d p o s tm o d e rn is m . O n th e one h a n d , h e w r ite s in a w a y ty p ic a l o f re a lis m . O n th e o th e r h a n d , h e u s e s v a rio u s e x p e r im e n ta l te c h n iq u e s c h a r a c te r is tic o f p o s tm o d e r n is t w ritin g , s u c h a s m u ltip le v ie w p o in ts , a lte r n a tiv e e n d in g s , m e ta fic tio n , e le m e n ts o f m ag ic re a lis m .
2 O ne e x am p le m ig h t b e P sych o lo g y in th e N o v e ls by J o h n F o w les b y C h r is tin e H n e u - sh e v a : h ttp s ://w w w .a c a d e m ia .e d u /1 6 0 9 4 1 9 /P s y c h o lo g y _ in _ th e _ N o v e ls _ b y _ J o h n _ F o w le s [Ac
c es sed J u n e 7, 2014]
p sy ch o an aly sts. G e n erally sp eak in g , th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex is a k in d of sex u a l/p e rso n ality d iso rd er w hich affects th e w ay m e n perceive wom en.
A m a n su fferin g from th e com plex divides w om en into only tw o categories:
m a d o n n a s, t h a t is honou rab le, re sp e c ta b le a n d p u re w om en, a n d w hores - dirty, prom iscuous sex toys. T he m a in pro blem for th e su ffe rer - a n d th e re a so n w hy th e com plex should be tre a te d a s a serio u s d iso rd er - is th e m a n ’s in a b ility to com bine love a n d sex in re la tio n to a single fem ale object.
S uch a m a n loves a n d re sp ects th e m a d o n n a figure, who o ften h a p p e n s to be h is wife, b u t is u su a lly u n a b le to h av e sex u al re la tio n s h ip w ith her. T his is th e re a so n w hy a lo t of m en com m it a d u lte ry a n d t u r n to th e w hore figure, w ith w h om th e r e la tio n s h ip is b a s e d o n s e x u a l a c t w ith o u t love. P a t G a u d e tte , th e a u th o r of M a d o n n a /W h o r e Complex, defines th e d iso rd er as a “sex u a l d y sfunction in w hich som e m en believe t h a t sex is a d irty a c t th a t is only enjoyed by «bad» w om en - w hores. F o r th e se m en, all w om en are d iv id e d in to tw o v e ry d iffe re n t g ro u p s: th e w h o r e s /p ro s titu te s /h a r lo ts , w om en w ho a re ea sily seduced a n d who enjoy th e d irty a c t o f sex; a n d th e M ad o n n a s/v irg in s (...) p u re w om en o f v irtu e who w ould n e v e r enjoy sex an d who w ould n o t be d eg rad ed by th e sex a c t”3.
T ypical of th e com plex is th e d isso c ia tio n o f th e “te n d e r ” a n d th e
“s e n s u a l” (or love a n d desire), w hich is ca u sed by th e fa ct t h a t in th e su ffe rer’s m in d th e m a d o n n a figure is in fa ct a re p re s e n ta tio n of th e m o th e r figure, e ith e r re a l or im a g in a ry if th e m a n did n o t h av e a m o th e r or th e re la tio n sh ip w ith h e r w as devoid of w a rm th a n d affection. In b o th cases th e m a n is u n a b le to h av e a sex u a l re la tio n sh ip w ith th e m a d o n n a figu re for fe a r of co m m ittin g incest, w hich conseq u en tly lead s to erectile dysfunction called by F re u d “psychical im potence”, w hich m e a n s t h a t “th is fa ilu re m ay (...) h a p p e n only w ith c e rta in w om en [m ad o n n as]”, w h e re a s o th erw ise “th e m a n m a y be fu lly fu n c tio n a l”4. M oreover, a m a n w ho is ro m a n tic a lly involved w ith th e m a d o n n a fig u re n ee d s som e o u tle t for h is sex u a l drive, a n d th u s h e s ta r ts looking for th e w hore figure, som eone to ta lly d iffe ren t from h is re a l or projected v ision of th e m o ther, som eone “eth ica lly in ferio r”.
T he p h en o m en o n is o ften re fe rre d to a s “th e d e g ra d a tio n of th e sex u al object”5 a n d is th e s u b je c t-m a tte r of F re u d ’s sem in al essa y e n title d “O n th e U n i v e r s a l T e n d e n c y to D e b a s e m e n t in t h e S p h e r e o f L o v e ” (19 1 2 ).
N ow adays, th e com plex is see n a s q u ite a com m on sex u a l d iso rd er a n d is o ften m en tio n ed in p o p u la r c u ltu re a n d tab lo id a rtic le s 6 a s w ell a s m edical
3 P. G a u d e tte , M a d o n n a /W h o r e C om plex. L o ve w ith o u t S ex. S e x w ith o u t L ove, L ecan to , 2011, p. 9.
4 U. H a r tm a n n , S ig m u n t F re u d a n d H is Im p a c t o n O u r U n d e r s ta n d in g o f M a le S e x u a l D y s fu n c tio n [in:] “J o u r n a l o f S e x u a l M e d icin e ” 2 009, A u g 6 (8), p. 2335.
5 Ib id ., p. 2335.
6 A lot of c e le b ritie s a n d p u b lic fig u re s a re sa id to h a v e th e m a d o n n a -w h o re com plex, for e x am p le B ill C lin to n , F ra n z K a fk a, E lv is P resley, to n a m e b u t a few. See G a u d e tte , op. cit.
a n d sociological jo u rn a ls , b u t in F ow les’s lifetim e i t w a s n o t so w idely know n. N e v erth eless, Fow les’s novels c o n ta in c le a r evidence t h a t th e w rite r h e a rd ab o u t th e p h en o m en o n a n d u n d o u b ted ly u tilize d it exten siv ely w hile c re a tin g h is lite ra ry c h a ra c te rs.
T he aim of th e follow ing p a p e r is to tra c e th e e le m e n ts of th e m ad o n n a- w hore com plex in two of F ow les’s novels, n am ely T he Collector a n d The M agus. S ince th e d iso rd e r afflicts m en , I c o n c e n tra te on th e m ale p ro ta g o n is ts - F re d e ric k C legg a n d N ic h o la s U rfe re sp ectiv ely . T h e m a in objective is to an aly ze th e w ay th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex sh a p e s th ese p ro ta g o n ists’ p e rso n a litie s a n d influ en ces th e w ay th e y perceive w om en in g en e ral, a s w ell a s how th e y c re a te a n d m a in ta in (or destroy) re la tio n sh ip s w ith p a r tic u la r fem ale p ro tag o n ists. In fact, th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex m ay be tre a te d a s a scaffolding on w hich th e re la tio n s b etw e en m ale an d fem ale p ro ta g o n ists a re b u ilt up. E a c h of th e tw o novels, how ever, does it in a slig h tly d iffe ren t way.
T he Collector (1963) p re s e n ts a m ale p ro ta g o n ist - F re d e ric k (F e rd i
n a n d ) Clegg - who su ffers from m ore th a n one disorder. In fact, h e ex h ib its a v ery b ro a d sp e c tru m of psychological, sex u a l a n d p e rso n a lity d iso rders.
N ot only is h e a ty p ical psy ch o p ath , b u t h e show s sig n s o f v a rio u s sex u al p e rv e rsio n s, su c h a s s a d is m a n d m aso ch ism , fe tish is m , v o y e u rism a n d v a rio u s p a r a p h ilia s . T h e se d e v ia tio n s, how ever, a re n o n -th re a te n in g in com parison w ith th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex. T h is d iso rd er is th e d riv in g force b e h in d all of Clegg’s actio n s co ncernin g M ira n d a a n d th e w ay he tr e a ts h e r th ro u g h o u t h e r p lig h t is d ic ta te d by th is p a r tic u la r co ndition. T he com plex is also to b la m e for M ira n d a ’s d e a th a t th e e n d of th e novel.
F re d e ric k Clegg m ay be a despicable ch a rac te r, b u t he is in fa ct a sick m an.
H is ac tio n s a re beyond h is contro l an d , consequently, h e sh o u ld n o t be condem ned b u t sy m p a th iz e d w ith.
A ccording to F re u d , th e cause of th e com plex is connected w ith th e su ffe rer’s re la tio n sh ip w ith h is m o th e r d u rin g childhood (or lack of su ch )7 a n d th e sam e m ay be sa id ab o u t th e orig in of C legg’s dysfunction. Clegg’s childhood a n d h is re la tio n sh ip w ith h is m o th e r a re th e m a in re a so n s w hy h e h a s becom e w h a t he is. H is fa th e r w as killed in a c a r c ra s h w h e n C legg w as tw o y e a rs old a n d h is m o th e r ab a n d o n ed h im soon afte rw a rd s. I t is clea r t h a t C legg h a s n e v e r forgiven her. W hile d escrib in g h is e a rly y o u th a n d his m o th er, for in s ta n c e , Clegg, th e H e ro -n a rra to r, co m m ents: “A u n t A n n e’s alw ays sa id good rid d an c e in so m a n y w ords, a n d I a g ree”8. A fter b ein g fo rsa k e n by h is m other, C legg is ra is e d by A u n t A nnie a n d U ncle Dick, who also h av e a d isab led d a u g h te r M abel. Clegg h a s q u ite a good re la tio n sh ip
7 M ore in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e o rig in o f th e co m p lex c a n b e fo u n d in F r e u d ’s e ssa y
“A S p e c ia l T ype o f O b je ct C hoice M a d e b y M e n ” (1910).
8 J . F o w les, T h e Collector, L o ndon, 1998, p.11. S ince a ll th e q u o ta tio n s com e fro m th is e d itio n o f th e n ovel, w e w ill give th e p a g e n u m b e rs in p a re n th e s e s .
w ith h is uncle, b u t D ick dies w h e n C legg is fifteen a n d th e y o un g m a n sp en d s h is adolescence in th e com pany of A u n t A nnie a n d M abel, b o th very bossy, in q u isitiv e, fru s tra te d , b itte r a n d m iserable.
A fter b ein g im m e rsed in su ch a toxic a tm o sp h e re for m a n y y e a rs, Clegg becom es a h a rd e n e d m isogynist. As A ndrew B rin k p u ts it, “th e novel w orks o u t th e te rrify in g effects of Clegg’s h o stility to th e w om en w ho b ro u g h t him up, o r failed to do so”9. Misogyny, w hich m ay be defined a s “a lo a th in g an d h a tre d o f w om en by m en (...) j u s t b ecau se th e y a re fem ale”10, is stric tly connected w ith th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex. As Sacco a n d L aino p u t it,
“som e m en u se w om en sex ually n o t only in o rd e r to b u ild u p th e ir own egos (...) b u t also (...) b ecau se th e y a re an g ry w ith w om en in g en e ral. E x p lo ita tio n th ro u g h sex is a m e a n s som e m en u se to g et even w ith w om en. M oreover th e w om en th e y u se for sex a re re p re s e n ta tiv e s of th e w om en w ho h av e h u r t th e m in th e p a s t th ro u g h n eg lect a n d rejectio n ”11.
H ow ever, Clegg does n o t h a te all w om en. A fte r all, h e falls in love w ith M ira n d a who becom es h is obsession, b u t he loves h e r an a c litic a lly 12, no t sexually. As a ty p ical su ffe rer of th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex, he divides w om en in to only two categ o ries - s a in t m a d o n n a s a n d d irty w hores. Of course, M ira n d a is th e m a d o n n a w h e re a s all th e o th e r w om en a re - like his m o th e r - “w om en of th e s tr e e ts ” (C 11). Clegg’s p ercep tio n of h is love object is clearly b a se d on th is dichotom y; th e n a r r a to r o ften m a k e s com parisons b etw e en M ira n d a a n d o th e r g irls he know s. F o r in sta n c e , C legg com pares M ira n d a w ith h is colleague’s g irlfrie n d saying: “S he w a s all M ira n d a w a sn ’t.
I alw ays h a te d v u lg a r w om en, especially g irls” (C 12). A t som e o th e r p o int h e says: “S he w as n o t lik e som e w om an you don’t re sp e c t so you don’t care w h a t you do, you re sp ected h e r a n d you h a d to be v ery ca refu l” (C 38).
B efore th e ab d u ctio n a n d for m o st of M ira n d a ’s im p riso n m e n t, h e tr e a ts h e r w ith re sp e c t a n d he h a s no in te n tio n of ab u sin g h e r sexually, a n d th is lack of sex u al drive is also ty p ical of som eone who h a s th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex. A m a d o n n a is som eone to be a d m ire d a n d ch e rish ed , a n d th is is how C legg tr e a ts M iran d a . H e idolizes a n d id ealizes her, he b elieves h e r to be in n o cen t a n d p u re: “people only m a rrie d for love, esp ecially g irls like M ira n d a ” (C 13). T h is k in d of b eh a v io u r is also v ery c h a ra c te ristic of th e
9 A. B rin k , O b sessio n a n d C u ltu re. A S t u d y o f S e x u a l O bsessio n in L ite r a tu r e ., C ra n - b u ry -L o n d o n -M ississ a u g a , 1996, p. 149.
10 P. Sacco, D. L a in o , M a d o n n a C o m p le x. W h y m e n are w ir e d to c h e a t o n w o m en , B re n tw o o d , 2011, p.23.
11 Ib id ., p. 14.
12 A cco rd in g to M e rria m -W e b s te r D ictio n a ry , a n a c litic m e a n s “r e la tin g to, o r c h a r a c te riz e d b y th e d ire c tio n o f love to w a rd a n o bject (a s th e m o th e r) t h a t s a tis fie s n o n s e x u a l n e e d s ”. I n th is k in d o f a tta c h m e n t, “fa llin g in love is b a s e d (...) on co n fu sio n o f th e object w ith a p re e x is tin g id e a l im a g e w e h a v e in o u r h e a d s : w e e q u a te th e p a r tn e r w ith our m o th e r, f a th e r , o r som e o th e r p r im a r y c a r e ta k e r .” B. F in k , F r e u d a n d L a c a n on Love:
A P re lim in a ry E x p lo ra tio n [in:] “F ilo so fsk i v e s tn ik ” 2006, V olum e XXVII, N u m b e r 2, p. 265.
m a d o n n a -w h o re com plex, in w h ich “a m a n su ffe rin g from th e com plex chooses a sex u ally in ex p erien ced w o m an for h is wife a n d places h e r on a v ery h ig h a n d lonely p e d e s ta l in o rd e r to w o rsh ip h e r goodness a n d v irtu e ”13.
H ence, th e com plex is o ften re fe rre d to a s th e p e d e s ta l/g u tte r syndrom e.
B ecause of th e id ealiza tio n , th e p h en o m en o n is often lin k ed w ith th e concept of M arian ism o , in w hich “m o ral v irtu e (...) places w om en on a som ew h at sem i-divine level”14. In th e case of Clegg, su ch a n id e a listic p ercep tio n o f th e k id n a p p e d girl ste m s from th e fa ct t h a t he is looking for a s u b s titu te for h is a b s e n t m other. T h is is w h a t M ira n d a h erself n otices a t one point: “I expect it ’s y o u r m other. You’re looking for y o u r m o th e r” (C 59)15.
A t th e sam e tim e Clegg c h a n n e ls h is sex u al d esire s so m ew here else - he v isits a p ro stitu te , h e p h o to g ra p h s couples h a v in g sex in p ublic places, he b u y s books of p o rn o g ra p h y 16. H ow ever, h e is a sh a m e d of th e s e activities:
“(...) I b o u g h t all th e books I w a n te d , som e of th e m I d id n ’t k now su ch th in g s ex isted , a s a m a tte r of fa ct I w as d isg u ste d (...) it ’s a lot d iffe ren t from w h a t I u s e d to d re a m of a b o u t M ira n d a a n d m e” (C 17). A lth o u g h h e does fa n ta siz e ab o u t M iran d a , h is fa n ta sie s a re in n o c e n t a n d devoid of sexu al u n d e rto n e s. A t one point, th e n a r r a to r says: “I u se d to h av e d re a m s ab o u t her, I u se d to th in k of sto ries w h ere I m e t her, did th in g s sh e ad m ired , m a rrie d h e r a n d all th a t. N o th in g n asty ...” (C 10). A ccording to T h o m as C.
F oster, Clegg sees him self a n d M ira n d a a s “p a r tn e r s in life, in b u tte rfly collecting, in a r t, b u t n o t in b ed ”17.
W h en C legg s ta r ts to observe M iran d a , h e t r e a ts h e r a s if she w ere a b u tte rfly : “L ike b u rn e t cocoons (...) I w as ca tc h in g a r a r ity (...) A P ale C lo u d e d Yellow, fo r i n s t a n c e . ” (C 9). B e c a u s e C le g g is a n a m a t e u r entom ologist a n d collecting b u tte rflie s 18 is th e only th in g he is p assio n ate abo u t, su ch a com parison show s th e d e p th o f h is affection for M iran d a.
How ever, th e w ay Clegg tr e a ts M ira n d a ch a n g es th ro u g h o u t th e novel. Since th e girl is v ery d e sp e ra te to re g a in freedom , sh e trie s e v e ry th in g to achieve
13 P. G a u d e tte , op. c it., p. 14.
14 P. Sacco, D. L ain o , op. c it., p. 20.
15 I n a w ay, C legg is lik e a m a n w h o w a s g iv e n u p fo r a d o p tio n a s a c h ild , w ho - a cc o rd in g to P a t G a u d e tte - “n e v e r w a s a b le to e x p e rie n c e th e e a r ly b o n d in g o f in f a n t to m o th e r ” a n d , co n se q u en tly , “m a y look for a m o th e r s u b s titu te to fu lfill t h a t n e e d ” (P. G a u d e tte , op. c it., p. 10). T h e c o n ce p t is k n o w n a s “tr a n s f e r e n c e ” (S ee P. Sacco, D. L ain o , op. cit.), sin ce c e r ta in fe e lin g s a r e tr a n s f e r r e d fro m th e m o th e r to th e w ife /g irlfrie n d .
16 C o n te m p o ra ry s tu d ie s sh o w v e ry c le a rly t h a t th e r e is a c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e com plex a n d p o rn o g ra p h y . A s G a u d e tte w rite s , “th is b e lie f [ t h a t is th e b e lie f in th e good g irl-b a d g irl d ichotom y] o n th e p a r t o f th e m a n is f r e q u e n tly m o st m a n ife s t b y h is a r o u s a l to e ro tic l ite r a tu r e , m a g a z in e s , m o v ies a n d f a n ta s ie s , b u t n o t to h is p a r t n e r ” (P. G a u d e tte , op. c it., p.12).
17 T. C. F o s te r, U n d e r s ta n d in g J o h n F ow les, C o lu m b ia , 1994, p. 24.
18 C legg’s p e r s o n a lity a n d a tt i tu d e to life a r e a ls o s h a p e d b y th e c o llecto r m e n ta lity . H e a p p r e c ia te s th o s e th in g s a n d people t h a t m ig h t b e u s e fu l sp e c im en s in h is collection.
I n m a n y re s p e c ts , h e t r e a ts M ir a n d a in th e sa m e w a y h e t r e a t s th e b u tte r f lie s a n d collec
tin g is th e c e n tr a l m e ta p h o r on w h ic h th e n o v el is c o n stru c te d .
th is aim , in clu d in g sed ucing Clegg. A t firs t she does it v ery subtly, b u t w ith o u t success, so she fin ally decides to m ak e th e u ltim a te sacrifice. On N ovem ber 3 0 th sh e g ets h e rs e lf a n d h e r c a p to r u n d re sse d , trie s to k iss him a n d en co u rag es h im to h av e sex w ith her, b u t in v ain. I t tu r n s o u t t h a t Clegg is a n im p o te n t. A fter th is e v e n t h e s ta r ts to h a te M iran d a , n o t only b ecau se h e feels ex tre m ely h u m ilia te d by w h a t h a p p e n e d b etw e en th e m , b u t also b ecau se h is p ercep tio n of th e g irl a s a s a in tly m a d o n n a is s h a tte re d ; M ira n d a a p p e a rs to be y e t a n o th e r “w om an of th e s tre e ts ”.
W h a t is u n u s u a l ab o u t Clegg’s case is t h a t he fu ses h is opposing view s of w om en a s m a d o n n a s a n d w hores in a single object, w hich is illu s tra te d by th e following d iagram :
the seduction
love (desire)
A n o th e r difference b etw e en Clegg a n d a ty p ical su ffe rer of th e com plex is Clegg’s in a b ility to h av e sex w ith “w h o res”. In fact, an y k in d of ph ysical co n tac t m a k e s h im feel u n e a sy a n d disgusted. F o r him , sex is a v u lg a r an d p rim itiv e activity: “I n e v e r h a d a n y th in g to do w ith w om en, I n e v e r th o u g h t ab o u t w om en m u ch before M iran d a . (....) It’s som e crud e a n im a l th in g I w as b o rn w ith o u t” (C 13). T his is w hy h e is u n a b le to g e t excited d u rin g his en c o u n te r w ith a p ro stitu te , w hich he d escrib es a s follows:
I won’t say what happened, except th at I was no good. I was too nervous, I tried to be as if I knew all about it and of course she saw, she was old and she was horrible, horrible. I mean, both the filthy way she behaved and in looks. She was worn, common. Like a specimen you’d tu rn away from, out collecting.
I thought of M iranda seeing me there like that. As I said, I tried to do it, but it was no good and I didn’t try hardly. (C 14-15)
In fact, h e is so a sh a m e d to ta lk a b o u t sex openly t h a t h e o ften re fe rs to it eu p h e m istic a lly a s “th e obvious”.
T h is is w hy th e ev e n ts described in th e sed u ctio n scene a re so tra u m a tic for th e p ro tag o n ist. M ira n d a crosses th e b o rd e r w h ich sh ou ld n o t be crossed, w hich ev e n tu a lly lead s to h e r d ea th . In fact, th e sed u ctio n scene is th e
clim ax of th e novel, so it is w o rth looking a t th e scene in q u estio n m ore closely. As w as said, th e e v e n t ta k e s place on N ovem ber 30th. A few d ays e a rlie r M ira n d a severely c u ts C legg w ith a n axe d u rin g one of h e r sev e ral a tte m p ts a t freein g herself. W hen he forgives h e r th e a tta c k , sh e ask s: “Tell m e w h a t I m u s t do to be s e t free. (...) If I w e n t to bed w ith you?” (C 94), to w hich C legg replies: “I d id n ’t know you w ere t h a t so rt” (C 94). T h is is no t th e only occasion w h e n M ira n d a im p lies t h a t sh e is re a d y to do a n y th in g , in clu d in g “th e obvious”, to be s e t free. H ow ever, Clegg does n o t t r e a t h e r su g g estio n s seriously, w h ich show s how stro n g ly h e believes h e r to be th e m ad o n n a, th e m o th er-fig u re w hom h e w a n ts to love only em otionally, n o t physically.
W hile in tro d u c in g th e sed u ctio n scene, C legg-the n a r r a to r says:
I know what some would think, they would think my behaviour peculiar. I know most men would only have thought of taking an unfair advantage and there were plenty of opportunities. I could have used the pad. Done what I liked, but I am not th a t sort, definitely not th at sort at all. (...) W hat she never understood was th at with me it was ju st having. Having her was enough. Nothing needed doing. I ju st wanted to have her, and safe at last. (C 95)
T he above p a ssa g e gives a lo t of in fo rm a tio n a b o u t C legg’s w ay of th in k in g . F ir s t of all, he w a n ts to be see n a s som eone differen t, is h is is only one o f m a n y occasions w h e n he com pares h im s e lf to o th e r m en w hom he describes a s vulgar, p rim itiv e etc. W h a t m ak es h im d iffe ren t is h is to ta l lack o f sex u a l drive to w a rd s M ira n d a , o r an yo ne else. Secondly, th e p assa g e ex p lain s h is m otives for k id n a p p in g th e girl, w h ich is j u s t “h a v in g ”. Finally, th e w ords “safe a t la s t” a re q u ite am big u o u s a n d m ay im p ly t h a t i t is Clegg h im se lf who w a n ts to feel safe th a n k s to h av in g M iran d a , w hich su p p o rts th e th e o ry t h a t he perceives h e r a s a m other-figu re. M ira n d a re p re s e n ts th e m o th erly w a rm th , care, affection a n d love w hich he w as d en ied a s a child.
N ot su rprisin g ly , th ere fo re , h e describ es th e e v e n ts o f N ovem ber 3 0 th w ith em otions re m in isc e n t of a ra p e victim . W hile d escribin g th e scene w ith M ira n d a u n d re ssin g in fro nt of him , he says: “I t w as terrible, it m ade m e feel sick an d trem bling, I w ished I w as on th e o th er side of th e world. I t w as worse t h a n w i th th e p r o s t i t u t e ; I d id n ’t r e s p e c t h e r , b u t w i t h M i r a n d a I knew I couldn’t sta n d th e sham e” (C 99). In fact, th e w ord “sh am e” app ears several tim es in th e description of these events. W h a t is also w orth noting is th e fact th a t Clegg re m a in s extrem ely passive th ro u g h o u t th e scene; it is M iran d a who does th in g s to Clegg, no t vice versa, he is so shocked th a t he is un able to do anything, w hich also m akes h im sim ilar to a victim of sexual abuse. After stripping herself, M iran d a u n d resses Clegg an d tries to m ake love to him:
I kept thinking, stop it, stop it, it’s wrong, but I was too weak. The next thing was I was naked and she was against me and holding me but I was all tense, it was like a different me and a different she. I know I wasn’t normal then, not
doing the expected, she did some things which I won’t say except th a t I would never have thought it of her. She lay beside me on the sofa and everything, but I was all twisted inside. (C 99-100)
L a te r on he confesses to be a n im p o te n t, w hich m ay or m ay n o t be tru e.
W h a t is c e rta in is t h a t he is u n a b le to g e t excited w ith M ira n d a b ecau se for him h a v in g sex w ith h e r is like a n a c t of incest. T h u s, C legg m ay su ffer from w h a t F re u d calls “psychical im potence”. A t th e en d of th e scene Clegg is m ad a n d d isap p o in ted , he ta lk s ab o u t h is losing re sp e c t for M iran d a : “(...) she d id n ’t see how to love m e in th e rig h t way. T h ere w ere a lo t of w ays she could h av e p lease d m e” (C 102), “I n e v e r re sp ected h e r again. I t left m e a n g ry for d ay s.” (C 103), “(...) she h a d k illed all th e rom an ce, sh e h a d m ade h e rs e lf like an y o th e r w om an, I didn’t re sp e c t h e r an y m ore, th e re w as n o th in g le ft to re sp e c t” (C 103-104). W hile ta lk in g ab o u t th e s itu a tio n to M ira n d a a few d a y s a fte rw a rd s , h e te lls h e r: “You’re n o t b e t t e r th a n a com m on stre e t-w o m a n (...) I u sed to re sp e c t you b ecau se I th o u g h t you w ere above w h a t you done [the seduction]. N o t like th e re st. B u t you’re ju s t th e sam e. You do an y d isg u stin g th in g to g e t w h a t you w a n t” (C 107).
T h e re fo re , C legg’s p e rc e p tio n of th e g irl to ta lly c h a n g e s a f te r th e seduction; th e m a d o n n a ch a n g es into th e w hore, w h e re a s fa sc in a tio n is re p la ced w ith h a tre d . N ot only does he call h e r a “com m on stre e t-w o m a n ”, b u t h e s t a r t s to t r e a t h e r as such. Soon a fte r th e in cid en t h e offers to le t h e r free if she poses for “obscene p h o to g ra p h s”, b u t sh e declines. L ater, h e m ak es h e r pose for th e p h o to g rap h s by u s in g violence. H ow ever, “th e b e s t ones w ere w ith h e r face c u t off” (C 110), w h ich m ay be in te rp re te d in tw o w ays.
Clegg c a n n o t look a t h e r face b ec au se he is a s h a m e d of w h a t h e h a s done to h e r or he c a n n o t look a t h e r face b ecau se he d esp ises h e r for w h a t she h a s done. In th e lig h t of th e e a rlie r re m a rk s th e la tte r e x p la n a tio n seem s m u ch m ore p lau sib le - Clegg c a n n o t s ta n d th e sig h t of M ira n d a ’s face b ecau se - in h is p ercep tio n - sh e is th e w hore a n d th is is w hy she h a s to be degraded.
W h a t is u n u s u a l, th e d e g ra d a tio n of M ira n d a from th e m a d o n n a into th e w hore does n o t e n ta il Clegg’s sex u a l a ttra c tio n to w a rd s M iran d a. T h u s, love is n o t re p la ced w ith desire. H ow ever, he does ra p e her, n o t literally, b u t m etapho rically, w h e n he ta k e s “obscene p h o to g ra p h s” o f her. As P a m e la C ooper n o tes, “once M ira n d a (...) h a s crossed Clegg’s psychic d ividin g line b e tw e e n t h e s t e r e o ty p e s « m a d o n n a » a n d «w hore», h e a b a n d o n s h is d isp ro p o rtio n ate ch iv alry a n d ex p resses h is b ru te pow er th ro u g h h is cam era.
T he re la tio n sh ip b etw een M ira n d a a n d C legg c u lm in a te s in a ph o to g rap h ic
«rape»... 19.19
19 P. C ooper, T h e F ic tio n s o f J o h n F ow les. Power, c rea tivity, fe m in in ity , O tta w a , 1991, p. 27.
E ventually, Clegg’s hostile a n d cold a ttitu d e to w a rd s M ira n d a - m ade even m ore so a fte r discovering h e r d ia ry - lead s to n eg lect a n d th e g irl’s d ea th . H ow ever, she is n o t a victim of C legg-a crim in al, b u t C legg-a sick m an , since th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex is a psychological d iso rd er beyond th e su ffe rer’s control. U n fo rtu n ately , th e re is no one to help h im , h e h a s no fam ily or friends. A t th e en d of th e novel h e s ta r ts looking for a n o th e r victim a n d it is v ery likely t h a t h e r fa te will be th e sam e a s M ira n d a ’s. A t th e sam e tim e Clegg’s n e x t victim is a sim ple sh o p -a ss is ta n t, w hich m e a n s t h a t th e sex u a l object h a d b ee n d eg rad ed 20.
A slig h tly d iffe ren t p o rtra y a l of th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex is p re s e n te d in The M agus. C o n tra ry to F re d e ric k Clegg, th e m a in p ro ta g o n ist o f th is novel - N icholas U rfe - is e v e ry th in g b u t a sex u al ab sta in e r. O n th e c o n tra ry, a t th e b eg in n in g of th e novel he - a s th e n a r r a to r of th e sto ry - p re s e n ts him self a s a sex u al p re d a to r21, a n a ttitu d e w h ich is o ften ty pical of th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex22:
I didn’t collect conquests, but by the time I left Oxford I was a dozen girls away from virginity. I found my sexual success and the apparently ephemeral nature of love equally pleasing. It was like being good at golf, but despising the game.
One was covered all round, both when one played and when one didn’t.
I contrived most of my affairs in the vacations, away from Oxford, since the new term m eant th at I could conveniently leave the crime scene. There were someti
mes a few tedious weeks of letters, but I soon put the solitary heart away,
«assumed responsibility with my total being» and showed the Chesterfieldian m ask instead. I became almost as neat at ending liaisons as at starting them 23.
N ot only is h e p ro u d of h is “te c h n iq u e ”, b u t th e w ay he sp e a k s of w om en is also devoid of su b tle ty a n d reflects h is lack of re s p e c t to w a rd s th e m 24.
S exual g ra tific a tio n a n d satisfy in g h is ego a re th e only re a so n s N icholas
20 M ore in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e p h e n o m e n o n c a n b e fo u n d in F r e u d ’s e s s a y e n title d “O n th e u n iv e r s a l te n d e n c y to d e b a s e m e n t in th e sp h e re o f love” (1922).
21 S u c h a v iew o f th e m a in p ro ta g o n is t is a d d itio n a lly e m p h a s iz e d b y th e e p ig ra p h s p re c e d in g e a c h o f th e th r e e p a r ts o f th e n o v el a n d ta k e n fro m L e s In fo r tu n e s d e la Vertu b y D e S ade. T h e e p ig r a p h to P a r t 1 re fe rs to “u n d e b a u c h e de p ro fe s sio n ” - p ro fe s sio n a l p ro m is c u ity o r som eone w h o is e x tre m e ly p ro m is c u o u s - w h ic h is a v e ry good d e s c rip tio n of N ic h o la s b efo re th e tra n s fo rm a tio n .
22 A cco rd in g to G a u d e tte , m e n s u ffe rin g fro m th e com plex o fte n le a d a “se x u a lly a ctiv e life s ty le ”, w h ic h sim p ly m e a n s th e y a r e p ro m iscu o u s.
23 J . F o w les, T h e M a g u s, L o ndon, 1997, p. 21. S ince a ll th e q u o ta tio n s com e fro m th is e d itio n o f th e n ovel, w e w ill give th e p a g e n u m b e rs in p a re n th e s e s .
24 F o r e x am p le : “T h e re w a s a lso a g irl I w a s tir e d of.” (M 18), “S h e w a s a b o u t th irty , a b o rn s p in s te r, w ith a la c k o f s e x u a lity so to ta l t h a t h e r s m a r t c lo th e s a n d too h e a v y m a k e -u p m a d e h e r p a th e tic ; lik e a n u n s u c c e s s fu l g e is h a .” (M 20), “I p a s s e d a couple of u n in te re s tin g -lo o k in g g irls o n th e s ta ir s ...” (M 22), “T h e u g ly g irls - th e y a lw a y s a r riv e f ir s t...” (M 22). S u c h a n a tt i t u d e to w a r d s w o m e n m a y s u g g e s t t h a t N ic h o la s, j u s t lik e C legg, is a m is o g y n is t, se x ism a n d se x u a l e x p lo ita tio n b e in g sy m p to m s o f s u c h a sta n c e :
“A k e y c o m p o n e n t o f m is o g y n y is d e g r a d a tio n b r o u g h t a b o u t th r o u g h th e d e v a lu in g of w o m e n ” (P. Sacco, D. L ain o , op. cit., p. 63).
in itia te s a n d m a in ta in s re la tio n s h ip s w ith w om en. As su ch a “D on J u a n ”, he m e e ts a n d b eg in s a re la tio n s h ip w ith a n A u s tra lia n girl called A lison Kelly.
H ow ever, t h e i r re la tio n s h ip is b a s e d m a in ly o n sex - su bco n scio u sly , N icholas tr e a ts A lison a s a w hore-figure, h e does n o t love h e r anaclitically.
In fact, he u se s h e r only to sa tisfy h is sex u a l n eed s, for h im A lison is only a sex object. W hen he feels t h a t th e girl w ould like to be m ore th a n j u s t a lover, h e leaves h e r a n d escap es to a G reek isla n d to te a c h E n g lish , since h e is sca red o f in tim a c y a n d is u n a b le to com bine d esire w ith love because, a s Sacco a n d L aino su g g est, “love a n d sex do n o t m a tc h u p for a m a n seeing th e w orld th ro u g h th e len ses of th e M a d o n n a com plex”25.
O n th e is la n d , N ic h o la s g e ts e n ta n g le d in a b iz a r re p s y c h o d ra m a d i r e c te d b y a m y s te r i o u s m ill io n a ir e M a u r ic e C o n c h is . D u r in g t h e ex p e rim en t, N icholas m e e ts a n d falls in love w ith a girl called Lily. In m an y w a y s h is fa s c in a tio n w ith th e g irl re s e m b le s C leg g ’s fa s c in a tio n w ith M iran d a , b u t N icholas’s in fa tu a tio n is n o t devoid of sex u al u n d e rto n e s. The h ero is d e n ie d s e x u a l c o n ta c ts w ith Lily, h ow ever, w h ich le a d s to h is fru stra tio n . T h u s, th e im age of Lily in N ic h a la s’s m in d oscillates b etw e en th e m a d o n n a a n d th e w hore. A t th e sam e tim e, th e aim o f C onchis a n d h is cab al is to show to N icholas t h a t i t is A lison who sho uld be seen a s th e m ad o n n a, n o t Lily. A t th e en d of th e ex p e rim en t, th e im ag e of Lily a s th e w hore w ins over h e r m ad o n n a-lik e q u alitie s, w h e re a s th e an a clitic a sp e c t of th is re la tio n sh ip is sh ifted from Lily to Alison. F inally, N icholas is cu red of th e com plex a n d is ca p ab le o f fo rm in g a h e a lth y re la tio n s h ip w ith h is A u s tra lia n g irlfrien d , w ith love a n d p a ssio n com bined.
N icholas’s tr e a tm e n t is a long a n d e la b o ra te process w hich b e a rs a g re a t re sem b la n ce to p sy ch o an aly sis26. In fact, th e c h a ra c te rs re fe r to F re u d an d J u n g v ery frequently, th e re is also a scene in w h ich N icholas is hypnotized.
O n som e o th e r occasion he is p re se n te d w ith a v ery d etailed d esc rip tio n of h is ow n p ersonality, w hich co n tain s a lot of p sy ch o an aly tical jarg o n . T he re p o rt in q u estio n m ay seem stro n g ly e x a g g era te d , b u t th e re is also som e t r u t h in it, som e of th e re m a rk s concerning N icho las’s p e rso n a lity seem very a c c u ra te . F o r in sta n c e , th e re p o rt d ra w s a tte n tio n to th e fa c t t h a t th e b eg in n in g s of th e h ero ’s p roblem s a re to be found in h is childhood, w hich is ty p ical of th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex. W hile describ in g h is b ackg rou nd , N ich o las-th e n a r r a to r says:
I had long before made the discovery th at I lacked the parents and ancestors I needed. My father was (...) a brigadier; and my mother was the very model of a would-be major-general’s wife. That is, she never argued with him and always behaved as if he were listening in the next room, even when he was thousands of miles away. (M 15)
25 P. Sacco, D. L ain o , op. c it., p. 39.
26 P s y c h o a n a ly s is , a lo n g w ith g ro u p th e ra p y , is r e g a r d e d a s th e b e s t t r e a tm e n t for th e m a d o n n a -w h o re com plex. S ee P. Sacco, D. L ain o , op. cit., p. 85.
H is fa th e r w a s very d e m a n d in g a n d stric t, w h e re a s h is wife w a s to tally subm issive to him , w hich h a d a g re a t im p act on th e re la tio n s h ip w ith h e r son. N icholas-the n a r r a to r does n o t say m u ch ab o u t h is m other, w hich is v e ry sy m p to m a tic of h is la c k of a t ta c h m e n t to h er, h e w a s p ro b a b ly in d iffe re n t to h e r a n d did n o t re sp e c t h e r27. N ot su rp risin g ly , th u s , N icholas accepts th e new s of h is p a r e n ts ’ tra g ic d e a th w ith o u t m u ch em otion: “A fter th e firs t shock I fe lt a n alm o st im m e d ia te sen se of relief, of freedo m ” (M 16).
U ndoubtedly, h is lack o f a close re la tio n sh ip w ith h is m o th e r - how ever cynical a n d in d ifferen t he m ay p re te n d to be - m ad e h im a n u n h a p p y child a n d h a s h a d a g re a t im p act on th e w ay he tr e a ts w om en, in clu d in g th e m ain fem ale p ro ta g o n ists, A lison a n d Lily.
In o rd e r to ex a m in e N icholas’s d iso rd er in m ore d etail, it is n ec e ssa ry to look a t th e se h ero in e s th ro u g h N icholas’s eyes a n d see how h is p ercep tio n of th e m ch an g es th ro u g h o u t th e novel. As w as said, from th e b e g in n in g of th e ir re la tio n sh ip N icholas tr e a ts A lison a s a sex object only, w hich ste m s from th e fa c t t h a t , a s K a th e r in e T a rb o x n o te s , h e “h a s a lw a y s d iffic u lty u n d e rs ta n d in g th e com plex re la tio n sh ip b etw e en sex a n d love. H e divides w om en into tw o classes: th o se who a re m e a n t to be loved a n d th o se w ho a re m e a n t to be used. C onsequently, h is a ffairs w ith w om en a re deform ed by h is in a b ility to see beyond a r b itra ry categ o ries”28. T h u s, th e re la tio n s h ip w ith A lison - a n d all th e w om en before h e r - is b ase d solely on sex. W h a t N icholas w a n ts A lison to do is only to satisfy h is sex u a l a p p e tite , h e does n o t h av e an y o th e r expectations. F ro m th e firs t m eetin g , h e sees h e r a s a n easy girl a n d a “colonial”: “S he h a d ca n d id grey eyes, th e only in n o cen t th in g s in a c o rru p t face, a s if circ u m sta n ces, n o t n a tu re , h a d forced h e r to be h a rd . (...) S he w a s b iz a rre , a k in d of h u m a n oxym oron” (M 24). T h ere a re m an y m o m en ts w h en N icholas looks down on Alison, th u s d eg rad in g h e r in a w ay ty p ical of th e com plex: “(...) I w a s te a c h in g her, an g licizin g h e r accent, p o lis h in g off h e r ro u g h n e s s , h e r p ro v in c ia lis m s ; in b e d s h e d id th e teaching... ” (M 35).
I t is tru e t h a t A lison is fa r from b ein g a p ru d e - a fte r all, th e y go to bed on th e sam e ev e n in g th e y m e e t - a n d sh e h a s q u ite a bag gag e of experience, in c lu d in g u n h a p p y re la tio n s h ip s a n d a n a b o rtio n , b u t h e r e x p e c ta tio n s co ncerning th e re la tio n sh ip w ith N icholas go fa r beyond p u re sex. S he loves him , b u t a t th e sam e tim e she re a liz e s t h a t h e is u n a b le to offer m ore th a n
27 H e fits v e ry w e ll G a u d e tte ’s s ta te m e n t t h a t “som e m e n w ith th e co m p lex d e sp ise t h e i r m o th e r s ” (P. G a u d e tte , op. c it., p. 16). Sacco a n d L a in o a lso o b se rv e t h a t “m o s t m a le s w h o p o ss es s th e M a d o n n a co m p lex h a v e s e a rc h e d fo r in tim a c y w ith th e i r o w n m o th e rs b u t h a v e faced re je ctio n . T h e ir m o th e rs a r e u s u a lly cold w o m e n w h o m a y o r m a y n o t ta k e c a re o f th e m p h y sically , b u t th e la c k o f e m o tio n is a c o n s ta n t...” (P. Sacco, D. L ain o , op.
c it., p. 29). T h is s ta te m e n t e x p la in s v e ry w e ll th e o rig in s o f th e com plex in b o th C legg a n d N ic h o la s.
28 K. T arbox, T h e A r t o f J o h n F ow les, A th e n s-L o n d o n , 1988, pp. 21-22.
sex u a l desire. In fact, A lison is fully a w a re o f N ich olas’s p ercep tio n of h e r as th e w hore figure. D u rin g one of th e ir n u m e ro u s q u a rre ls, sh e sh o u ts: “I’m a w hore a n d a colonial” (M 35), ex p ectin g N icholas to deny, b u t h e only says:
“I w ish you w ouldn’t u se t h a t w ord” (M 35). L a te r on, sh e calls h im “a snob, a prig, a tw o p en n y -h alfp en n y D on J u a n ” (M 40).
W h en N icholas leav es A lison, h e feels a relief, b u t also satisfactio n . W hile ex ch an g in g le tte rs w ith her, h e d e lib e ra te ly w a n ts to h u r t h e r even m ore: “I w rote a le tte r in re p ly to say t h a t I h a d b ee n ex pecting h e r letter, t h a t she w as p erfectly free. B u t I to re it up. I f a n y th in g m ig h t h u r t her, silence w ould; a n d I w a n te d to h u r t h e r” (M 55). A t th e sam e tim e, however, he som etim es th in k s of A lison, b u t th e se a re u s u a lly m o m en ts of sexu al fru stra tio n : “I b e g a n to th in k erotically of A lison ag ain ; of th e d irty w eek-end p le a su re s of h a v in g h e r in som e A th e n s h o tel bedroom ...” (M 159). In fact, h is fa n ta sy com es tru e som e tim e la te r - N icholas a n d A lison m e e t in A th en s a n d go on a trip to P a rn a s su s . T he e n c o u n te r p re s e n ts N icholas w ith y e t a n o th e r occasion to u se a n d h u r t her. H is b eh a v io u r d u rin g th e ir e n c o u n te r a n d w h a t he say s ab o u t it only confirm t h a t h is p ercep tio n of A lison as th e w hore h a s n o t ch a n g ed since th e y p a rte d . H e decides to m e e t h e r for very selfish re aso n s, “o u t of a d esire to p lay m y ow n double gam e w ith C onchis”
(M 245) a n d d erives a lo t of p le a s u re from th is “du p licity ” (M 249), i.e. lying to b o th A lison a n d C onchis. N ick describes A lison w ith th e following words:
“T h ere w as so m eth in g ab o u t A lison’s m a n n e r a n d ap p e ara n ce; if a m a n w as w ith her, h e w e n t to bed w ith h e r” (M 248), th u s try in g to b lam e h e r for th e fa ct t h a t sh e is tr e a te d a s a sex object.
W h a t is m ore, N ich o las is d ish o n e st w ith A lison. In o rd e r to avoid h av in g sex w ith h e r - n o t for noble re aso n s, b u t b ecau se h e is a lre a d y fa sc in a te d w ith L ily - h e say s h e is n o t allow ed to h av e sex b ecau se of syp h ilis w hich h e c o n tra c te d in a b ro th e l in A th e n s29. H e also decides n o t to m e n tio n th e o th e r girl to A lison30.
H ow ever, th e y e n d u p m a k in g love tw ice, firs t in th e ch a le t, th e n by a lak e in th e forest. T h is is how N icholas d escrib es th e scene in th e chalet:
She undressed me completely (...) As she caressed me, I thought, it’s like being with a prostitute, hands as adept as a prostitute’s, nothing but a m atter of pleasure ... and I gave way to the pleasure she gave me (...) Alison murmured, shifted, bit me, swayed over me in a caress she called the pasha caress, th a t she knew I liked, all men liked; my mistress and my slave. (M 263-264)
T h ro u g h o u t th e scene N icholas c re a te s a n im p ressio n of b ein g a p assiv e v ictim of th e circ u m sta n ces, w hich re sem b le s C legg’s b e h a v io u r d u rin g th e sed u ctio n scene. In th e n e x t love-m aking scene, how ever, he is m ore active
29 T h e fa ct t h a t h e fin d s it e a s y to t a l k a b o u t v e n e r e a l d is e a s e s , b u t n o t h is e m o tio n s, is sy m p to m a tic o f h is fe a r o f in tim ac y , w h ic h is y e t a n o th e r m a n if e s ta tio n o f th e com plex.
30 L ik ew ise, h e in itia lly d o es n o t te ll L ily a b o u t m e e tin g A liso n in A th e n s . H e only d oes it m u c h l a t e r a n d fo r p a r tic u la r re a so n s .
a n d m ore a w are of th e im p lica tio n s of h is actions, w h ich is connected w ith th e chan g e alre a d y ta k in g place in h is m ind, a n d w hich w ill be d iscussed later. T he m e e tin g w ith A lison en d s w ith a b ig row a n d m ore accu satio ns.
T he girl says: ’’C h rist, you’re n o t ju s t a fra id of th e th in g love. You’re even a fra id of u s in g th e w ord now. (...) You th in k love is sex” (M 273), w hich very w ell su m m a riz e s th e ir re la tio n sh ip a n d N ich olas’s a ttitu d e to w a rd s w om en in g en e ral. T he w ay N icholas tr e a ts A lison on M o u n t P a rn a s s u s is p a rtly connected w ith th e fa ct t h a t he is a lre a d y deeply in fa tu a te d w ith Lily, who - a s w as sa id - oscillates in h is m in d b etw e en th e m a d o n n a a n d th e w hore.
F ro m th e b e g in n in g of h is a c q u a in ta n c e w ith L ily N ich olas trie s to idealize th e g irl in th e sam e w ay a s C legg idealizes M iran d a . H e re th e situ a tio n is a d d itio n ally com plicated by L ily’s c o n sta n tly c h a n g in g identity.
F irs t, sh e is p re s e n te d to th e hero a s a g h o st of C onchis’s d ead fiancee.
A lth o u g h N ic h o la s k n o w s i t is j u s t a g a m e , h e w illin g ly a c c e p ts th e in v ita tio n to p la y i t a n d p re te n d s to believe in th e g irl’s s u p e r n a tu r a l prov enance. H ow ever, su ch a p ercep tio n o f h e r c re a te s d istan ce b ecau se N icholas m ay feel u ncom fo rtable a b o u t d esirin g som eone else’s (C onchis’s) w o m an a n d b ecau se Lily b eh a v es in a v ery old-fashioned a n d p ru d is h way.
In one of th e scenes, for in sta n c e , Lily says: “A re you ask in g m e to com m it o sculation?” (M 198), w hich am u se s N icholas in s te a d o f ex citin g him . L ater, th e girl is p re s e n te d a s C onchis’s schizop hren ic re la tiv e called J u lie H olm es.
In th is case, C onchis openly forbids N icholas to m a k e ad v an ces on h e r a s h e does n o t w a n t h is “p a tie n t” to g et confused o r h u rt.
A t th e sam e tim e, th e m a in p ro ta g o n ist m a k e s com p ariso ns b etw e en Lily a n d Alison. H is p ercep tio n of th e tw o w om en is clearly b a se d on th e dichotom y m a d o n n a - w hore, w hich is p a rtic u la rly visible in h is acco u n t of th e P a rn a s s u s episode. N icholas sees A lison a s less a ttra c tiv e phy sically - “P re tty en o u g h body, p re tty en o u g h clothes, a good w alk, th e sam e old w oun ded face a n d tru th -s e e k in g eyes. A lison m ig h t la u n c h te n sh ip s in me;
b u t J u lie [Lily] la u n c h e d a th o u s a n d ” (M 246)” - b u t also less en ticin g intellectually, less soph isticated .
N icholas th in k s of Lily d u rin g h is in te rc o u rse w ith A lison a n d - a fte r com ing b ack from A th e n s - feels g u ilty a b o u t sleep in g w ith h is ex-girlfriend.
A lth o u g h h e is n o t in a re la tio n sh ip w ith Lily, h e feels a s if h e h a s ch e ated on her: “O n m y side I k n ew th e g h o st of A lison, of w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d on P a rn a s su s ; a flicker of ad u ltery , a m o m en t’s g u ilt” (M 283). T h u s, N icho las’s percep tio n of th e tw o g irls re sem b le s a tria n g le ty p ical o f th e m ado nn a- w hore com plex, th e re la tio n sh ip involving th re e people, a m an , h is wife an d h is lover. In th is case, how ever, th e s itu a tio n is c re a te d a rtific ia lly by C onchis a n d Lily, w h e re a s lack of sex is th e r e s u lt of d en ial on L ily’s side, n o t N icholas’s “psychical im potence”. T h a n k s to th is im posed ab stin en c e, th e p ro ta g o n ist le a rn s to a p p re c ia te o th e r a sp e cts of fem ininity.
N e v erth eless, he finds it ex tre m ely difficult n o t to fa n ta siz e ab o u t th e y o ung girl. N icholas crav es Lily sexually a n d ev e ry th in g h e does seem s to be d ic ta te d by h is hope t h a t h e w ill finally be given a chan ce to sleep w ith her.
H e is p a tie n t, b u t a t th e sam e tim e h e c a n n o t live w ith o u t sex. T his is w hy h e m a s tu rb a te s so m uch, th is is w hy he v isits a b ro th e l in A th en s, finally, th is is w hy he sleeps w ith Alison. H e is so f r u s tr a te d sex ually t h a t h e even con siders becom ing a h om osexual31.
Lily is fully a w a re of h is sex u a l f r u s tr a tio n a n d sh e develops th e ir re la tio n sh ip in su ch a w ay on purpose. W h en sh e is finally re a d y to h av e sex w ith N icholas, she claim s to be h a v in g h e r perio d a n d only m a s tu rb a te s him . L ater, w h en th e y finally h av e a n in terco u rse, sh e b eh a v es like a p ro stitu te . S he d re sse s quickly a fte r th e in terc o u rse, w h e re a s a group of m en e n te r th e room a n d k id n a p N icholas. H ow ever, th e p ro ta g o n ist is shocked m ore by Lily’s indifference r a th e r th a n by b ein g sn a tc h e d by th e m en.
H is idealized p ercep tio n of Lily is fu r th e r s u b v e rte d d u rin g N icholas’s sym bolic tria l, w h en h e is m ad e to w a tc h Lily in a p o rn o g rap h ic film , w h ere she is show n a s a “w h o re” of a b lack “m o n ste r of th e M ississip p i” p lay ed by Joe. L ate r, N icholas is p re s e n te d w ith a live scene of th e above m en tio n ed c h a ra c te rs c o n tin u in g th e ir sex a c t in fro n t o f h is eyes. T he scene is called
“d isin to x ica tio n ”, w hich N icholas d escribes a s “a m e ta p h o ric a l (...) flogging”
(M 521) a n d its m a in p u rp o se is to cu re N icholas o f Lily, b u t also to cu re him of th e m a d o n n a -w h o re com plex. T h e e v e n t to ta lly s u b v e r ts N ic h o la s’s p r e c o n c e p tio n s a b o u t w o m e n : “E v e r y t h i n g I h a v e e v e r t h o u g h t to u n d e r s ta n d a b o u t w om en re ced e d , in terw o v e, flow ed into m ystery , into d is to rtin g sh ad o w s a n d c u rre n ts , like objects s in k in g aw ay, away, down th ro u g h sh a fte d d e p th s of w a te r” (M 529).
T he tw is t of e v e n ts described above n o t only d ra w s N icholas’s a tte n tio n to Lily’s re a l role in th e gam e a n d h is re la tio n sh ip w ith her, b u t it also m a k e s h im aw a re of h is re a l feelings to w a rd s Alison. H e slowly com es to see m a d o n n a q u a litie s in h is ex-girlfriend, w h e re a s Lily becom es - lite ra lly an d m etap h o ric ally - th e w hore. N icholas’s p ercep tio n of A lison a s th e m a d o n n a fig ure does n o t come a s a su d d en re v elatio n , tho ug h. W hile looking a t th e e v e n ts from te m p o ra l distan ce, N icholas re a liz e s t h a t th e re w ere m an y signs t h a t A lison w as m ore th a n j u s t a lover. O ne of su ch sig n s a p p e a re d d u rin g th e trip to P a rn a s s u s , w h en A lison stopp ed to ta lk to som e local ch ild ren . S eeing h e r w ith th e k id s N icholas felt a n u n id e n tifie d em otion w hich m u ch la te r a p p e a re d to be love. O nly a fte r th e disin to x icatio n does he re alize t h a t h e loves A lison anaclitically. T h u s, h is feelings to w ard s Lily a re au th e n tic , b u t th e re c ip ie n t sh o u ld be different. T he re a liz a tio n t h a t h e is able to love is th e firs t ste p to w ard s becom ing a h e a lth y m an . U n fo rtu n ately , it com es a t
31 N ic h o la s sh o w s a lo t o f sy m p to m s o f b e in g a sex a d d ic t, w h ic h is a n o th e r fe a tu r e of th e m a d o n n a -w h o re com plex.
a m o m en t w h e n N icholas th in k s A lison is dead. T he situ a tio n w as devised by C onchis a n d it h elp s N icholas a p p re c ia te A lison even m ore. W h en he le a rn s t h a t h e r suicide w a s j u s t a fake, h e is c e rta in he w a n ts to be w ith h e r n o t a s a lover, b u t a s a p a r tn e r in life.
A t th e sam e tim e N icholas s ta r ts to a p p re c ia te w om en in g en e ral. In P a r t 3 o f th e novel he m a k e s frie n d s w ith two fem ales (K em p a n d Jojo), w hich w ould be im possible for th e N icholas from P a r t 1. T h u s, h e stops seein g w om en a s e ith e r m a d o n n a s or w hores, h e does n o t look a t every w o m an a s a p ro sp ectiv e sex toy. As for th e s p h e re of re la tio n sh ip s , he u n d erg o es a tre m e n d o u s ch ange, too. As P a t G a u d e tte s ta te s , in o rd e r to be cu red a m a n su fferin g from th e com plex “m u s t w a n t to chan g e a n d be m o tiv a te d to do th e w ork n ec e ssa ry in o rd e r to t r e a t all w om en a s whole perso n s - b o th good a n d b a d ”32. U ndoubtedly, N icholas is hig h ly m o tiv ated to chan g e a n d he does chan g e in th e end. H e sees A lison a s a single entity, a w o m an w hom he loves a n d d e sire s a t th e sam e tim e, w ith o u t in c e st anxiety. N icholas is no longer afraid of intim acy an d begins to express his em otions m ore openly. T hus, he is finally cured of th e m adonna-w hore complex.
S u m m in g up, The Collector a n d T he M a g u s p re s e n t th e sam e psycho
logical p h en o m en o n . B o th p ro ta g o n is ts su ffe r from th e m ad o n n a -w h o re com plex a n d , co n se q u en tly , th e r e a r e m a n y s im ila r itie s b e tw e e n th e ir p e rso n a litie s a n d re la tio n sh ip s w ith w om en. B oth Clegg a n d N icholas divide fem ales in to only two categ o ries - m a d o n n a s a n d w h ores - a n d a re u n a b le to com bine love a n d desire. W h a t m a k e s th e c h a ra c te rs d iffe ren t is m ain ly th e ir a ttitu d e to w a rd s sex. N icholas is p rom iscuous, w h e re a s C legg is a n im p o te n t. M oreover, only one of th e m (N icholas) g e ts cured , w h e re a s th e o th e r one (Clegg) will alw ay s divide w om en in to th e se two groups, w hich m a k e s h im a n ex tre m ely tra g ic figure. T h u s, th e tw o novels p re s e n t two d istin c t lite ra r y p o rtra y a ls of th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex, one o p tim istic a n d th e o th e r pessim istic, w hich reflects th e n a tu re of th e com plex itself - if n o t tre a te d , th e com plex d estro y s th e su ffe rer a n d th e people close to him .
I t is also w o rth n o tin g t h a t T he Collector a n d The M a g u s a re n o t th e only novels by J o h n F ow les in w hich tra c e s of th e m ad o n n a-w h o re com plex c a n be found. O th e r m ale p ro tag o n ists, su ch a s C h a rle s S m ith so n of The F rench L ie u te n a n t’s W om an, or th e eponym ous p ro ta g o n ist o f D a n iel M a rtin , seem to d isp lay som e sym ptom s of th e com plex, too. A t th e sam e tim e, all fem ale p ro ta g o n ists c re a te d by F ow les a p p e a r to fall into one of th e two categories, th e y a re e ith e r s a in t m a d o n n a s or d irty w hores, o r a com bination of th e two types.
32 P. G a u d e tte , op. c it., p. 38.
B ib lio g ra p h y
Brink, Andrew. Obsession and Culture. A Study o f Sexual Obsession in Literature., Associated University Press, Cranbury-London-Mississauga, 1996.
Cooper, Pamela. The Fictions o f John Fowles. Power, creativity, femininity. Universi
ty of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, 1991.
Fink, Bruce. “Freud and Lacan on Love: A Prelim inary Exploration” [in:] “Filosofski vestnik” 2006, Volume XXVII, Number 2, pp. 263-282.
Foster, Thomas C. Understanding John Fowles, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia 1994.
Fowles, John. The Collector, The Random House Group Limited, London, 1998.
Fowles, John. The Magus, The Random House Group Limited, London, 1997.
Gaudette, Pat. Madonna/Whore Complex. Love without Sex. Sex without Love, Home and Leisure Publishing, Inc., Lecanto, 2011.
Hartm ann, Uwe. “Sigmunt Freud and His Impact on Our Understanding of Male Sexual Dysfunction” [in:] “Journal of Sexual Medicine” 2009, Aug 6 (8), pp. 2332
-2339.
Sacco, P., Laino D. Madonna Complex. Why men are wired to cheat on women, chipmunkapublishing, Brentwood, 2011.
Tarbox, Katherine. The A rt o f John Fowles, The University of Georgia Press, Athens
London, 1988.
Streszczen ie
A rty k u ł zaczy n a się od k ró tk ie j c h a ra k te ry s ty k i zesp o łu m a d o n n y i ladacznicy, gdyż celem p ra cy je s t z n alezien ie elem en tó w tego sy n d ro m u w sposobie k re o w a n ia b o h a te ró w w dwóch pow ieściach J o h n a F ow lesa, K olekcjonerze i M a g u . P is a rz s ta r a się dow ieść, że głów ni protago- n iści ty ch u tw o ró w - F re d e ric k C legg i N ich o las U rfe - c ie rp ią n a zespół m ad o n n y i ladacznicy, co w p ły w a n a ich życie, zw łaszcza re la cje z k o b ieta m i, a ta k ż e j e s t s iłą n a p ęd o w ą ich d z ia łań i p o dejm ow anych p rzez n ich decyzji. M im o licznych pod o b ień stw m ięd zy b o h a te ra m i, lite ra c k ie o b razy k o m p le k su w ty ch dw óch pow ieściach s ą różne. N ich o las zo staje w yleczony i powieść kończy się szczęśliw ie, podczas gdy c h oroba C legga zdaje się być n ie u le cz aln a, co p ro w ad zi do śm ierci M iran d y , a ta k ż e p rz y p u szc z aln ie p rz y cz y n ia się do tra g e d ii ko lejn y ch k o b iet w p rz y szłości.
