It is irrefutable that Fowles had a preferred ending

He directly says this himself! Why are we repeating misinformation that he has directly contradicted? You never need to say again that "it's just up to the reader," cause that malarkey isn't what Fowles said.
In the seventh paragraph of his 1977 Forward, he confides, "The other change is in the ending. Thought its general intent has never seemed to me as obscure as some readers have evidently found it -- perhaps because they have not given due weight to the two lines from the Pevigilium Veneris that close the book..."
Lots of information in that quote. By citing, "its general intent" he is plainly telling us that there is a general intent. And he thinks that he was fairly clear in what ending he wanted, not "obscure." This ends permanently any conceivable idea that "it's just up to the reader."
He continues by even accepting fault for not having been sufficiently clear about what he wanted to say in the original, and indeed reports that he has now more clearly "declared" the above "intent": "I accept that I might have declared a preferred aftermath less ambiguously...and have now done so."
So not only does he tell us that there exists "preferred" ending (while scolding us for not figuring it out the first time), he even claims to have more clearly tipped his hand in the new edition.
This is irrefutable, the above are his lucid words and their ambit is unmistakable.
The problem for me is (like others) I still can't work out what he means. The "two lines" suggest continued love but are ambiguous (despite what he seems to think). Meanwhile, the line "she will [...] never forgive" in the last paragraph takes us the other way, but its being a subjective momentary observation and the associated nonsense "she willl [...] never speak" make this suspect as well.
She's going to someday speak, so that line's wrong, and since that's wrong, then maybe "never forgive" is baloney too. But I don't know. Is there anywhere on the net that has an intelligent discussion of this, I don't think we should have to re-invent the wheel on this. He thinks he was fairly clear the first time and more clear the second. Even though I can't find his "preferred aftermath" in the words, he has "declared" on record that it exists.
P.S. PUHL-LEASE do not answer with that lame story about how he told one ending of a book to a cancer patient and another to an obnoxious lady, we already know that, and it's not relevant to the above. Thanks.
In the seventh paragraph of his 1977 Forward, he confides, "The other change is in the ending. Thought its general intent has never seemed to me as obscure as some readers have evidently found it -- perhaps because they have not given due weight to the two lines from the Pevigilium Veneris that close the book..."
Lots of information in that quote. By citing, "its general intent" he is plainly telling us that there is a general intent. And he thinks that he was fairly clear in what ending he wanted, not "obscure." This ends permanently any conceivable idea that "it's just up to the reader."
He continues by even accepting fault for not having been sufficiently clear about what he wanted to say in the original, and indeed reports that he has now more clearly "declared" the above "intent": "I accept that I might have declared a preferred aftermath less ambiguously...and have now done so."
So not only does he tell us that there exists "preferred" ending (while scolding us for not figuring it out the first time), he even claims to have more clearly tipped his hand in the new edition.
This is irrefutable, the above are his lucid words and their ambit is unmistakable.
The problem for me is (like others) I still can't work out what he means. The "two lines" suggest continued love but are ambiguous (despite what he seems to think). Meanwhile, the line "she will [...] never forgive" in the last paragraph takes us the other way, but its being a subjective momentary observation and the associated nonsense "she willl [...] never speak" make this suspect as well.
She's going to someday speak, so that line's wrong, and since that's wrong, then maybe "never forgive" is baloney too. But I don't know. Is there anywhere on the net that has an intelligent discussion of this, I don't think we should have to re-invent the wheel on this. He thinks he was fairly clear the first time and more clear the second. Even though I can't find his "preferred aftermath" in the words, he has "declared" on record that it exists.
P.S. PUHL-LEASE do not answer with that lame story about how he told one ending of a book to a cancer patient and another to an obnoxious lady, we already know that, and it's not relevant to the above. Thanks.