What do you think?
Rate this book
Mrs de Winter
Married to the sophisticated, worldly-wise Maxim, the second Mrs de Winter's life should be happy and fulfilled. But the vengeful ghost of Rebecca, Maxim's first wife, continues to cast its long shadow over them. Back in England after an absence of over ten years, it seems as if happiness will at last be theirs.
But the de Winters still have to reckon with two hate-consumed figures they once knew—both of whom have very long memories...
Rebecca was Daphne du Maurier's most famous and best-loved novel. Countless readers wondered: what happened next? Out of fire-wracked ruins of Manderley, would love and renewal rise phoenix-like from the ashes of the embittered past?
But the de Winters still have to reckon with two hate-consumed figures they once knew—both of whom have very long memories...
Rebecca was Daphne du Maurier's most famous and best-loved novel. Countless readers wondered: what happened next? Out of fire-wracked ruins of Manderley, would love and renewal rise phoenix-like from the ashes of the embittered past?
290 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
88 people are currently reading
3876 people want to read
About the author
Susan Hill
180 books2,263 followersSusan Hill was born in Scarborough, North Yorkshire in 1942. Her hometown was later referred to in her novel A Change for the Better (1969) and some short stories especially "Cockles and Mussels".
She attended Scarborough Convent School, where she became interested in theatre and literature. Her family left Scarborough in 1958 and moved to Coventry where her father worked in car and aircraft factories. Hill states that she attended a girls’ grammar school, Barr's Hill. Her fellow pupils included Jennifer Page, the first Chief Executive of the Millennium Dome. At Barrs Hill she took A levels in English, French, History and Latin, proceeding to an English degree at King's College London. By this time she had already written her first novel, The Enclosure which was published by Hutchinson in her first year at university. The novel was criticised by The Daily Mail for its sexual content, with the suggestion that writing in this style was unsuitable for a "schoolgirl".
Her next novel Gentleman and Ladies was published in 1968. This was followed in quick succession by A Change for the Better, I'm the King of the Castle, The Albatross and other stories, Strange Meeting, The Bird of Night, A Bit of Singing and Dancing and In the Springtime of Year, all written and published between 1968 and 1974.
In 1975 she married Shakespeare scholar Stanley Wells and they moved to Stratford upon Avon. Their first daughter, Jessica, was born in 1977 and their second daughter, Clemency, was born in 1985. Hill has recently founded her own publishing company, Long Barn Books, which has published one work of fiction per year.
Librarian's Note: There is more than one author by this name.
She attended Scarborough Convent School, where she became interested in theatre and literature. Her family left Scarborough in 1958 and moved to Coventry where her father worked in car and aircraft factories. Hill states that she attended a girls’ grammar school, Barr's Hill. Her fellow pupils included Jennifer Page, the first Chief Executive of the Millennium Dome. At Barrs Hill she took A levels in English, French, History and Latin, proceeding to an English degree at King's College London. By this time she had already written her first novel, The Enclosure which was published by Hutchinson in her first year at university. The novel was criticised by The Daily Mail for its sexual content, with the suggestion that writing in this style was unsuitable for a "schoolgirl".
Her next novel Gentleman and Ladies was published in 1968. This was followed in quick succession by A Change for the Better, I'm the King of the Castle, The Albatross and other stories, Strange Meeting, The Bird of Night, A Bit of Singing and Dancing and In the Springtime of Year, all written and published between 1968 and 1974.
In 1975 she married Shakespeare scholar Stanley Wells and they moved to Stratford upon Avon. Their first daughter, Jessica, was born in 1977 and their second daughter, Clemency, was born in 1985. Hill has recently founded her own publishing company, Long Barn Books, which has published one work of fiction per year.
Librarian's Note: There is more than one author by this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 416 reviews
March 21, 2021
Buddy read with my friend, Vickie 😊💕
I was so excited to be reading a sequel of Rebecca. I knew the original author didn’t write it but I thought it would be ok. No, just no!!
I was happy at first with all of my people again and then....
Anyhoo, it’s always lovely to read with my book buddy, Vickie and I hope our next book is awesome!
Mel 🖤🐶🐺🐾
I was so excited to be reading a sequel of Rebecca. I knew the original author didn’t write it but I thought it would be ok. No, just no!!
I was happy at first with all of my people again and then....
Anyhoo, it’s always lovely to read with my book buddy, Vickie and I hope our next book is awesome!
Mel 🖤🐶🐺🐾
August 14, 2012
If you love the original Rebecca do yourself a favor and stay away from this book. Susan Hills kills a good mystery. How dare she destroy such a beloved novel! She does an injustice to the characters and its a bore. She ruins the tale of Maxim and the late Mrs. De Winter. It starts poorly, continues poorly and ends horribly. I wish there could be an invention to erase it from my memory.
It took everything out of me not to tear the book up and set it on fire. But that would mean I would have to pay for it since it was a library book. Susan Hills demolishes your personal perception of the De winters life after Manderly. If you want to know what happens to the De winters you are better off writing your own story no one else's sequel would satisfy you. Unless of course if there was a sequel written by Daphne du Maurier herself. That’s the only exception to this.
Heed my warning unless you want to be left terribly disappointed.
It took everything out of me not to tear the book up and set it on fire. But that would mean I would have to pay for it since it was a library book. Susan Hills demolishes your personal perception of the De winters life after Manderly. If you want to know what happens to the De winters you are better off writing your own story no one else's sequel would satisfy you. Unless of course if there was a sequel written by Daphne du Maurier herself. That’s the only exception to this.
Heed my warning unless you want to be left terribly disappointed.
February 20, 2018
NOPE.
(Spoilers below. Great honkin' ones. You've been warned.)
So incredibly boring & tedious & depressing. Having read the original, I didn't expect the narrator to have taken kickboxing lessons from Wonder Woman, but jaysus -- could this chick possibly be more bland & lacking in page presence? I doubt it. This is 10+ years since REBECCA ended. The author could have used that gap to indicate *some* kind of growth on the narrator's part, but no -- instead she's STILL wearing boring, fugly clothes, refusing to let herself be anything but unworldly & timid, pinching pennies & judging rich folks, stumbling around in Max's wake (literally) because...? There is NO REASON for this except the author was desperate to maintain the status quo. Odd, that, given how she (i.e., the author) kills Beatrice in the first chapter, thereby snuffing out a key component of light & sanity in the original, & then bookends the misery by killing Max in the last 5 pages.
Please take a moment to let that sink in.
Max is killed. Off-page. In a car wreck that serves no purpose. I know this because I read the final chapters.
...Fuck off.
I'm not suffering through boring, depressing blahness that utterly negates any sense of future positivity in the original ending. DNF & good riddance.
(Spoilers below. Great honkin' ones. You've been warned.)
So incredibly boring & tedious & depressing. Having read the original, I didn't expect the narrator to have taken kickboxing lessons from Wonder Woman, but jaysus -- could this chick possibly be more bland & lacking in page presence? I doubt it. This is 10+ years since REBECCA ended. The author could have used that gap to indicate *some* kind of growth on the narrator's part, but no -- instead she's STILL wearing boring, fugly clothes, refusing to let herself be anything but unworldly & timid, pinching pennies & judging rich folks, stumbling around in Max's wake (literally) because...? There is NO REASON for this except the author was desperate to maintain the status quo. Odd, that, given how she (i.e., the author) kills Beatrice in the first chapter, thereby snuffing out a key component of light & sanity in the original, & then bookends the misery by killing Max in the last 5 pages.
Please take a moment to let that sink in.
Max is killed. Off-page. In a car wreck that serves no purpose. I know this because I read the final chapters.
...Fuck off.
I'm not suffering through boring, depressing blahness that utterly negates any sense of future positivity in the original ending. DNF & good riddance.
October 20, 2017
"Nu mai era, însă, la fel de categoric acum, sau la fel de impulsiv; devenise mult mai calm, mai răbdător, mai ales față de plictiseală. Se schimbase. Și totuși, privindu-l acum, îl vedeam la fel ca atunci când îl cunoscusem, era același Maxim. Ar fi trebuit să fie o seară ca toate celelalte petrecute împreună, vorbind despre fleacuri, simpla mea prezență îl liniștea și era dependent de mine, obișnuită de-acum să fiu eu cea puternică."
"Odată, când nu aveam ceva mai bun de făcut, îi scrisesem o scrisoare scurtă la care nu-mi răspunsese, iar apoi îmi ieșise complet din minte, prinsă cum eram în vârtejul cumplitelor întâmplări care ne distruseseră viața. Și anii mai liniștiți care au urmat, nu mă mai gândisem la ea decât în treacăt, fără măcar să mă întreb dacă mai trăiește. Dar poate că ar fi trebuit să mă gândesc la ea, dacă le datorăm măcar un gând oamenilor au avut o importanță în viața noastră."
"Odată, când nu aveam ceva mai bun de făcut, îi scrisesem o scrisoare scurtă la care nu-mi răspunsese, iar apoi îmi ieșise complet din minte, prinsă cum eram în vârtejul cumplitelor întâmplări care ne distruseseră viața. Și anii mai liniștiți care au urmat, nu mă mai gândisem la ea decât în treacăt, fără măcar să mă întreb dacă mai trăiește. Dar poate că ar fi trebuit să mă gândesc la ea, dacă le datorăm măcar un gând oamenilor au avut o importanță în viața noastră."
February 7, 2014
Susan Hill is a talented writer (I highly recommend her "The Woman in Black"), she does good work evoking DuMaurier's style, and the ending is, perhaps, inevitable. But the book bogged down by the middle, and I skimmed the last 75 pages, because the characters were just tiresome. Although the sequel starts 10 years after "Rebecca" and the destruction of Manderley, the "second Mrs. DeWinter" (still unnamed) doesn't appear to have matured so much as a day. While it's often pointed out that she's been the "manager" in the relationship over the decade, she still reacts like a green teenager, is still intimidated by the ghost of Rebecca, as well as by Favell and Mrs. Danvers, and still can't seem to have an adult conversation with her husband. I found myself frequently wanting to smack her. So I'm going to just put the sequel out of my mind and stick instead with the image of Joan Fontaine's steely resolve at the end of the Hitchcock movie!
June 24, 2022
Don't see it as a "real sequel" just another author imagination of how it could have gone. But didn't much care for it. Didn't feel like it added anything to the "Rebecca" story. I'm not often I love with other authors continuing someone else's work
February 17, 2017
As if Rebecca wasn't bad enough, we had to have someone come along and write a sequel that was equally bad, if not worse in some parts. Even my mother who loved Rebecca disliked this. Blech.
March 28, 2023
Simple, lenta, soporífera, y absoluta y totalmente innecesaria. Solo mejora hacia el final, y de ahí la puntuación final de 1’5. Pero me parece, en general, tan malo que no puedo subirla a dos estrellas.
No he leído ninguna reseña sobre esta novela ni en Goodreads ni por internet, pero no dudo ni un momento que en muchas de ellas la expresión más repetida habrá sido aquella de “Segundas partes nunca fueron buenas” porque aquí queda claro que así es. Habrá excepciones a esa premisa, pero el libro que nos ocupa no es una de ellas. Es el tercer libro que leo de Susan Hill, tras la celebre “Mujer de negro” y una recopilación de tres cuentos góticos cuyo titulo no recuerdo. No digo que sea una mala escritora, de hecho escribe muy bien y sabe crear atmósferas y tramas muy interesantes y que mantienen al lector en constante vilo. Pero por alguna razón que no puedo apreciar a primera vista, es una autora con la que no acabo de conectar, lo siento pero no me dice nada como escribe, y sus libros no son precisamente mis favoritos.
No obstante, para su descargo, hay que reconocerle algo: la sombra de esa maravilla que es la “Rebeca” de Daphne Du Maurier es muy, muy alargada. Si te acercas a “La Señora de Winter es porque antes lo has hecho con la obra de Du Maurier. O por lo menos has visto esa otra obra de arte que es la película que dirigió el genial Alfred Hitchcock sobre la mismaa. Debo reconocer que quizás por eso me resulte difícil ser imparcial con el trabajo de Hill. El libro de Du Maurier es una de mis novelas preferidas, y Hitchcock es también uno de mis directores predilectos, y de todas sus cintas “Rebeca” es de lejos mi preferida, siendo también una de mis películas favoritas, como no. Juro que he intentando que todo esto no me influyera, pero también creo que es inevitable que las comparaciones entre las dos novelas se sucedan. Se puede decir que de la “Señora de Winter” solo hay tres cosas que pueden salvarse:
En primer lugar , los momentos en que Hill logra imitar la forma de escribir y el estilo de Daphne Du Maurier. Cuando lo consigues, surgen los mejores momentos que tiene el libro. La autora logra imitar muy bien a su predecesora a ratos, realmente sorprende cuando consigue hacerlo bien. Pero esto tiene un precio que se paga desde las primeras hojas del libro. Para lograr imitar el difícil inconfundible estilo de la autora de obras como “La Posada de Jamaica” o “Mi prima Rachel”, Hill recurre a las descripciones de lugares y sensaciones, que desde el principio usa en demasía. Y eso solo entorpece la narrativa de un libro que, por otra parte, tampoco tiene mucho que contar, ya que su argumento es a grandes rasgos muy pobre y simple, y se limita en muchas ocasiones a seguir en paralelo o imitar a su manera lo que acontecía en la trama de “Rebeca”, sin aportar nada nuevo o interesante. Además, estos momentos no son muy frecuentes, la mayoría de la veces Hill no logra acercarse ni de lejos a las elegantes y complejas tramas de Du Maurier, y solo llega a realizar un pálido y tosco reflejo de las mismas, sin meterte en la angustiosa, gótica y sensual atmósfera de la novela original. Aunque eso si, hay que reconocer que Hill cuando es ella escribe muy bien, tiene un estilo muy pulido, y que cuando sigue su estilo logra crear buenas escenas. Pero sin saber imitar buen la maravillosa prosa de la otra escritora.
En segundo lugar, que aquí se ilustra algo que muchos hemos pensado y sabemos: “Rebeca” es una novela que hoy en día seria impublicable, ya que el meollo de la cuestión es actualmente percibido (por suerte, ya que hemos tardado en asumir que ciertos temas y comportamientos son lo que son) como algo totalmente injustificado y malo, y visto como lo que es, un delito. Y aquí eso se muestra con un final karmico que puede o no gustarte, puedes o no entenderlo, pero notas(y quizás sea la único bueno que tiene, como menciono más abajo) que es justo y adecuado.
Y en tercer y último lugar, la introspección que a veces logra sobre la segunda Señora de Winter, para explicar su comportamiento y forma de ser y de vivir en ambas novelas, y que da coherencia y nitidez a este personaje que aún sigue sin nombre. Necesito volver a leerme “Rebeca”, es una de mis asignaturas pendientes, pero creo recordar que en el original esto también se daba. De todas formas, en la novela que nos ocupa, toda la evolución personal que este carácter pudo tener con Du Maurier (y lo tuvo, y de hecho era una de las gracias de su obra más famosa, ver como deja de ser una niña y va ganando confianza y madurez) queda en nada. Y es una autentica pena. Aquí nos encontramos con un personaje infantil, inseguro y repetitivo, toda la obra es un constante monólogo interior donde ella expone todas sus dudas, temores y deseos, muchos de los cuales resultan ridiculos y descafeinados, y es imposible conectar con ellos.
El resultado es un personaje soso y que no tiene un carácter propio o bien definido, que no para de asegurar que ha crecido, pero eso es lo que no se ve en su comportamiento. Todo depende de la opinión que tiene su esposo, Maxim de Winter, y de la aprobación que este le de. Por otra parte, no recuerdo mucho sobre como estaba perfilado psicológicamente el personaje de Maxim en la novela de Du Maurier. Pero aquí es un personaje insustancial, poco interesante, y que aburre soberanamente. Perseguidos por unos demonios internos y de su pasado que solo él y su esposa parecen comprender y aceptar (ya que resultan tan sin sentido e ilógicos que el lector no puede entenderlos) este matrimonio se alza como un perfecto ejemplo de la alineación de una parte hacia su cónyuge.
Ni siquiera se salva de la quema la Señora Danvers, que en esta secuela es despojada de toda su compleja aura obsesiva, siniestra e imperturbable exteriormente (que no internamente) que levantaba escalofríos en la protagonista y en los lectores, esencia que tan bien supo retratar Judith Anderson en el film de Hitchcock. Hill ,desde luego, no sabe muy bien que hacer con ella más que convertirla en un pálido y loco reflejo de lo que fue con Du Maurier. Sabemos que sigue dando miedo e intimidando porque nos lo dice la narradora (Las escasas escenas en las que logra demostrarnos eso son de las mejores de toda la novela), pero en muy pocos momentos logramos percibirlo. Es cierto que en la mayoría de los personajes de Du Maurier se percibe cierto masoquismo, un gusto por sufrir. Pero ella sabía llevarlo muy bien, lo hacía de forma orgánica y demostrando que era parte de las personalidades de sus personajes y de la atmósfera psicológica de sus obras, no como en esta novela donde eso no se lleva nada bien, solo resulta un sinsentido.
Para ser sinceros, lo que me animado a leer esta novela ha sido que se estrena en Netflix la nueva versión de Rebeca, Y mi primer impulso fue volver a leerme la novela original. Lamento no haberlo hecho, ya que siento que esta secuela ha sido una auténtica pérdida de tiempo. La trama es muy lenta, no sucede nada relevante en la mayoría de sus páginas, y no resuelve los enigmas que se proponían al final en la “Rebeca” original, y tampoco cierra satisfactoriamente los misterios que aparecen en sus propias páginas. De hecho en todos estos asuntos se pasa casi de pies puntillas, parece que a la autora solo le interesa exponer las dudas y los sentimientos de culpabilidad que alberga su protagonista mientras se dedica a ir de un sitio a otro durante tres partes de la novela, a la par que hace descripciones minuciosas, etéreas y bonitas, sí, pero que no aportan nada a la trama y solo logran hacerla más lenta y pesada de lo que ya es.
Debo decir que yo creo que he disfrutado mucho el último tercio del libro precisamente porque es ahí donde se concentran los sucesos más importantes, de hecho ha sido el único momento en que le llegado a engancharme un poco a la novela, y donde Hill ha podido mostrar sus dotes como narradora de thrillers y misterio, y crear un sensación de agobio que sin acercarse a la obra original, esta muy conseguida y atrapa al lector al estilo de la autora. El resto de la novela es simplemente un viaje tras otro, una duda tras otra, y sientes que la narración no avanza para nada. Bueno, no lo sientes. Es que es así. Es una obra que no tiene ni pies ni cabeza y solo consigue saturar al lector por lo insípida que acaba resultando, su lentitud, y las incesantes y repetitivas cuestiones vitales que plantea su narradora sobre lo que vive. Y todo para llegar a un final demasiado abrupto después de tantas idas y venidas, que no logra convencer ni aclara nada y que deja todo demasiado abierto.
He estado a punto de dejarla en muchas ocasiones, he seguido con ella más por cabezonería y porque realmente no resulta muy compleja o difícil de leer. Pero en ningún momento (o en muy pocos) he notado que se capte la esencia de la “Rebeca” de Du Maurier, lo que por otra parte conseguido que es prácticamente imposible, tal es la maestría con que esta novela fue escrita. Y a todos esto ¿Cómo diablos se le ocurre a Hill enseñarnos la cara de Rebecca por medio de una foto? Precisamente era una de las gracias de la novela original, ver como solo recuerdo, tenía tal presencia y tal fuerza que controlaba al resto de los personajes que aparecían durante la obra, aunque nunca la veías ni en retrato ni en foto y Hill le ha quitado toda la gracia a esa sutileza narrativa al ponerla cara.
No he leído ninguna reseña sobre esta novela ni en Goodreads ni por internet, pero no dudo ni un momento que en muchas de ellas la expresión más repetida habrá sido aquella de “Segundas partes nunca fueron buenas” porque aquí queda claro que así es. Habrá excepciones a esa premisa, pero el libro que nos ocupa no es una de ellas. Es el tercer libro que leo de Susan Hill, tras la celebre “Mujer de negro” y una recopilación de tres cuentos góticos cuyo titulo no recuerdo. No digo que sea una mala escritora, de hecho escribe muy bien y sabe crear atmósferas y tramas muy interesantes y que mantienen al lector en constante vilo. Pero por alguna razón que no puedo apreciar a primera vista, es una autora con la que no acabo de conectar, lo siento pero no me dice nada como escribe, y sus libros no son precisamente mis favoritos.
No obstante, para su descargo, hay que reconocerle algo: la sombra de esa maravilla que es la “Rebeca” de Daphne Du Maurier es muy, muy alargada. Si te acercas a “La Señora de Winter es porque antes lo has hecho con la obra de Du Maurier. O por lo menos has visto esa otra obra de arte que es la película que dirigió el genial Alfred Hitchcock sobre la mismaa. Debo reconocer que quizás por eso me resulte difícil ser imparcial con el trabajo de Hill. El libro de Du Maurier es una de mis novelas preferidas, y Hitchcock es también uno de mis directores predilectos, y de todas sus cintas “Rebeca” es de lejos mi preferida, siendo también una de mis películas favoritas, como no. Juro que he intentando que todo esto no me influyera, pero también creo que es inevitable que las comparaciones entre las dos novelas se sucedan. Se puede decir que de la “Señora de Winter” solo hay tres cosas que pueden salvarse:
En primer lugar , los momentos en que Hill logra imitar la forma de escribir y el estilo de Daphne Du Maurier. Cuando lo consigues, surgen los mejores momentos que tiene el libro. La autora logra imitar muy bien a su predecesora a ratos, realmente sorprende cuando consigue hacerlo bien. Pero esto tiene un precio que se paga desde las primeras hojas del libro. Para lograr imitar el difícil inconfundible estilo de la autora de obras como “La Posada de Jamaica” o “Mi prima Rachel”, Hill recurre a las descripciones de lugares y sensaciones, que desde el principio usa en demasía. Y eso solo entorpece la narrativa de un libro que, por otra parte, tampoco tiene mucho que contar, ya que su argumento es a grandes rasgos muy pobre y simple, y se limita en muchas ocasiones a seguir en paralelo o imitar a su manera lo que acontecía en la trama de “Rebeca”, sin aportar nada nuevo o interesante. Además, estos momentos no son muy frecuentes, la mayoría de la veces Hill no logra acercarse ni de lejos a las elegantes y complejas tramas de Du Maurier, y solo llega a realizar un pálido y tosco reflejo de las mismas, sin meterte en la angustiosa, gótica y sensual atmósfera de la novela original. Aunque eso si, hay que reconocer que Hill cuando es ella escribe muy bien, tiene un estilo muy pulido, y que cuando sigue su estilo logra crear buenas escenas. Pero sin saber imitar buen la maravillosa prosa de la otra escritora.
En segundo lugar, que aquí se ilustra algo que muchos hemos pensado y sabemos: “Rebeca” es una novela que hoy en día seria impublicable, ya que el meollo de la cuestión es actualmente percibido (por suerte, ya que hemos tardado en asumir que ciertos temas y comportamientos son lo que son) como algo totalmente injustificado y malo, y visto como lo que es, un delito. Y aquí eso se muestra con un final karmico que puede o no gustarte, puedes o no entenderlo, pero notas(y quizás sea la único bueno que tiene, como menciono más abajo) que es justo y adecuado.
Y en tercer y último lugar, la introspección que a veces logra sobre la segunda Señora de Winter, para explicar su comportamiento y forma de ser y de vivir en ambas novelas, y que da coherencia y nitidez a este personaje que aún sigue sin nombre. Necesito volver a leerme “Rebeca”, es una de mis asignaturas pendientes, pero creo recordar que en el original esto también se daba. De todas formas, en la novela que nos ocupa, toda la evolución personal que este carácter pudo tener con Du Maurier (y lo tuvo, y de hecho era una de las gracias de su obra más famosa, ver como deja de ser una niña y va ganando confianza y madurez) queda en nada. Y es una autentica pena. Aquí nos encontramos con un personaje infantil, inseguro y repetitivo, toda la obra es un constante monólogo interior donde ella expone todas sus dudas, temores y deseos, muchos de los cuales resultan ridiculos y descafeinados, y es imposible conectar con ellos.
El resultado es un personaje soso y que no tiene un carácter propio o bien definido, que no para de asegurar que ha crecido, pero eso es lo que no se ve en su comportamiento. Todo depende de la opinión que tiene su esposo, Maxim de Winter, y de la aprobación que este le de. Por otra parte, no recuerdo mucho sobre como estaba perfilado psicológicamente el personaje de Maxim en la novela de Du Maurier. Pero aquí es un personaje insustancial, poco interesante, y que aburre soberanamente. Perseguidos por unos demonios internos y de su pasado que solo él y su esposa parecen comprender y aceptar (ya que resultan tan sin sentido e ilógicos que el lector no puede entenderlos) este matrimonio se alza como un perfecto ejemplo de la alineación de una parte hacia su cónyuge.
Ni siquiera se salva de la quema la Señora Danvers, que en esta secuela es despojada de toda su compleja aura obsesiva, siniestra e imperturbable exteriormente (que no internamente) que levantaba escalofríos en la protagonista y en los lectores, esencia que tan bien supo retratar Judith Anderson en el film de Hitchcock. Hill ,desde luego, no sabe muy bien que hacer con ella más que convertirla en un pálido y loco reflejo de lo que fue con Du Maurier. Sabemos que sigue dando miedo e intimidando porque nos lo dice la narradora (Las escasas escenas en las que logra demostrarnos eso son de las mejores de toda la novela), pero en muy pocos momentos logramos percibirlo. Es cierto que en la mayoría de los personajes de Du Maurier se percibe cierto masoquismo, un gusto por sufrir. Pero ella sabía llevarlo muy bien, lo hacía de forma orgánica y demostrando que era parte de las personalidades de sus personajes y de la atmósfera psicológica de sus obras, no como en esta novela donde eso no se lleva nada bien, solo resulta un sinsentido.
Para ser sinceros, lo que me animado a leer esta novela ha sido que se estrena en Netflix la nueva versión de Rebeca, Y mi primer impulso fue volver a leerme la novela original. Lamento no haberlo hecho, ya que siento que esta secuela ha sido una auténtica pérdida de tiempo. La trama es muy lenta, no sucede nada relevante en la mayoría de sus páginas, y no resuelve los enigmas que se proponían al final en la “Rebeca” original, y tampoco cierra satisfactoriamente los misterios que aparecen en sus propias páginas. De hecho en todos estos asuntos se pasa casi de pies puntillas, parece que a la autora solo le interesa exponer las dudas y los sentimientos de culpabilidad que alberga su protagonista mientras se dedica a ir de un sitio a otro durante tres partes de la novela, a la par que hace descripciones minuciosas, etéreas y bonitas, sí, pero que no aportan nada a la trama y solo logran hacerla más lenta y pesada de lo que ya es.
Debo decir que yo creo que he disfrutado mucho el último tercio del libro precisamente porque es ahí donde se concentran los sucesos más importantes, de hecho ha sido el único momento en que le llegado a engancharme un poco a la novela, y donde Hill ha podido mostrar sus dotes como narradora de thrillers y misterio, y crear un sensación de agobio que sin acercarse a la obra original, esta muy conseguida y atrapa al lector al estilo de la autora. El resto de la novela es simplemente un viaje tras otro, una duda tras otra, y sientes que la narración no avanza para nada. Bueno, no lo sientes. Es que es así. Es una obra que no tiene ni pies ni cabeza y solo consigue saturar al lector por lo insípida que acaba resultando, su lentitud, y las incesantes y repetitivas cuestiones vitales que plantea su narradora sobre lo que vive. Y todo para llegar a un final demasiado abrupto después de tantas idas y venidas, que no logra convencer ni aclara nada y que deja todo demasiado abierto.
He estado a punto de dejarla en muchas ocasiones, he seguido con ella más por cabezonería y porque realmente no resulta muy compleja o difícil de leer. Pero en ningún momento (o en muy pocos) he notado que se capte la esencia de la “Rebeca” de Du Maurier, lo que por otra parte conseguido que es prácticamente imposible, tal es la maestría con que esta novela fue escrita. Y a todos esto ¿Cómo diablos se le ocurre a Hill enseñarnos la cara de Rebecca por medio de una foto? Precisamente era una de las gracias de la novela original, ver como solo recuerdo, tenía tal presencia y tal fuerza que controlaba al resto de los personajes que aparecían durante la obra, aunque nunca la veías ni en retrato ni en foto y Hill le ha quitado toda la gracia a esa sutileza narrativa al ponerla cara.
May 21, 2015
It must take a brave author to do a follow on book to Daphne Du Maurier’s ‘Rebecca’, but this is what Susan Hill has done. I think Rebecca was calling out for a sequel though – when I read the book I kept looking for more pages to read, the ending was so underwhelming.
The good points of Susan Hill’s book for me were:
• She was brilliantly able to emulate Du Maurier’s sensuous and sensitive descriptions of people, countryside and houses.....and this was a joy.
• Similarly, she was able to continue Du Maurier’s atmosphere of gothic suspense. I personally find this style too theatrical, too unrealistic and camp – but she was true to the original author so the continuity was good.
• Her ending was an improvement on the original ending. There was a lot more closure, and I found it more satisfactory.
The bad points of the book:
Well, there was only one bad point, but it was pivotal, and influenced everything in the book. In 'Rebecca' there are two sides shown to our nameless heroine. In the first part of the book she is drippy, drippy, drippy, and any sympathy you may feel for the her situation is steamrollered by her endless references to poor inadequate me. In the second part of the book she picks up, and becomes a lot more feisty. This remodeled, stronger heroine is tons more attractive, and the book generally became a lot more gripping. I think a lot of this hinged on the heroine bucking up her ideas. So, what did Susan Hill do in the sequel? She chose to make our heroine revert to drippy, drippy, drippy mode. Agggggh! How could she have done that! For me, the flabbiness and negativity of the narrator was a continual irritation, and it undermined the momentum of the story to a degree that was seriously off-putting.
Having said that, I admire Susan Hill for having a go. I think Rebecca was crying out for a better ending, and Hill’s ending was an improvement on what was there before.
The good points of Susan Hill’s book for me were:
• She was brilliantly able to emulate Du Maurier’s sensuous and sensitive descriptions of people, countryside and houses.....and this was a joy.
• Similarly, she was able to continue Du Maurier’s atmosphere of gothic suspense. I personally find this style too theatrical, too unrealistic and camp – but she was true to the original author so the continuity was good.
• Her ending was an improvement on the original ending. There was a lot more closure, and I found it more satisfactory.
The bad points of the book:
Well, there was only one bad point, but it was pivotal, and influenced everything in the book. In 'Rebecca' there are two sides shown to our nameless heroine. In the first part of the book she is drippy, drippy, drippy, and any sympathy you may feel for the her situation is steamrollered by her endless references to poor inadequate me. In the second part of the book she picks up, and becomes a lot more feisty. This remodeled, stronger heroine is tons more attractive, and the book generally became a lot more gripping. I think a lot of this hinged on the heroine bucking up her ideas. So, what did Susan Hill do in the sequel? She chose to make our heroine revert to drippy, drippy, drippy mode. Agggggh! How could she have done that! For me, the flabbiness and negativity of the narrator was a continual irritation, and it undermined the momentum of the story to a degree that was seriously off-putting.
Having said that, I admire Susan Hill for having a go. I think Rebecca was crying out for a better ending, and Hill’s ending was an improvement on what was there before.
December 8, 2010
I was looking in the library for a Daphne du Maurier book to take on holiday to Fowey, as that's her home town and I remembered from a previous visit that I'd probably be overcome with the urge to read her work while I was there and thought I'd go prepared. None of the du Mauriers in the library appealed to me but I spotted this instead and decided it would fit the bill nicely. It's a sequel to du Maurier's most famous book Rebecca.
This book is narrated again by Maxim de Winter's second wife who manages not to use her own first name again and it is set a decade or so after the events at Manderley. It also covers ""what happened next"" to several other characters - the only one I recalled was Mrs Danvers.
Indeed I read Rebecca so long ago that I can only remember the vaguest details - but all the same I thought this was a good read and it seemed plausible enough. I'm going to go and have a look around the web and see what real du Maurier fans thought of it. I enjoyed it though which is all I want really!
January 11, 2012
Sequels are difficult at the best of times, but when another author takes the responsibility of taking one on, it's going to be a real challenge. I have read mixed reviews on Susan Hill's handling of Mrs De Winter, the follow up to the very successful "Rebecca", but I have to come down on the side of the people who liked it. I thought she did a very good job and I felt I could have been reading a book written by Daphne du Maurier, as Ms. Hill kept very much to the same writing style and general athmosphere created in Rebecca. It's a matter of taste I suppose, some will like it, some won't, Rebecca is a hard act to follow. The De Winters have returned to England for a funeral and Mrs De Winter realises how much she wants to come home for good, after being in exile for 10 years, travelling Europe and having no roots or home of her own. She is also thinking how much she would like to have children and she is still a young woman, so she tries to convince Maxim to return. However, just when she thinks she has put the past behind them and she finds happinness, Favell and Mrs Danvers appear to haunt her and her husband. I like the way she brought the story forward and showed us how the De Winters were dealing with their lives after Manderly. For me, it was a 4 star, Rebecca being a 5 star read.
April 14, 2007
A follow up to Daphne du Maurier's classic, Rebecca. Mrs. de Winters, however, falls short of everything. It just isn't compelling enough to read other than to find out what happens to the de Winters after Rebecca . I can't even remember much of the plot. Plus the characters seem dry and tired, as if all that they want to do is rest and be forgotten.
March 21, 2021
Sigh... so wanted to like this one. Such a disappointing sequel.😕 Always love buddy reading with my good friend, Mel, though! That's the only thing that made this one bearable. 😊
January 31, 2021
I wasn't expecting much from this sequel to Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca. I set the bar low, but Susan Hill managed to dig a hole under it. How do you set a book 10 years later and show exactly zero character development for any of the characters? Especially when we had actually started to see something more from Mrs. de Winter at the end of Rebecca. Here, the only development seems to be that Mrs. de Winter is now upset that her husband is a murderer, but we see no transition to this line of thinking and are just supposed to accept that that is what happened over the past 10 years. Similarly, Maxim de Winter is still his same hot and cold self, triggered by everything, with Mrs. de Winter continuing to make herself small and accommodating to his unspecified needs. It starts off using a similar tactic as the sequel to Gone With the Wind by killing off a major supporting character that provided a significant counterpoint to the main character and insight into her husband. Manderley and Rebecca hang over their heads still, and while that is an understandable plot device, these elements are interjected at random moments. Mrs. Danvers and Flavell show up to add elements of mystery and contempt, as is to be expected, but like the mentions of Manderley and Rebecca, they are used so poorly, having suddenly shown up after 10 years, that it is laughable.
Ah well. I didn't expect anything wonderful from this book, but having discovered its existence, I had to read it to complete the journey of Rebecca I started last year. Cross it off the list.
Ah well. I didn't expect anything wonderful from this book, but having discovered its existence, I had to read it to complete the journey of Rebecca I started last year. Cross it off the list.
October 24, 2007
Terrible. I looked forward to reading a sequel to "Rebecca," but I was horribly disappointed by this. Maxim comes off as a total wimp, and the new Mrs. DeWinter just panders to him and treats him like a baby. They spend the whole book running around flailing for no good reason, but never stop to talk to each other about it. The ending is worst of all.
May 4, 2025
10 years or so have passed since the dramatic events at Manderley. The protagonist & her husband Maxim de Winter have spent these years living abroad as anonymously as possible when a letter arrives informing them of Beatrice’s death (Maxim’s sister). They return to the UK and events are set in motion: A mysterious funeral wreath ominously signed ‘R’, threatening letters from an old enemy, the return of Mrs Danvers..
————
I enjoyed du Maurier’s Rebecca and had high hopes for this one as well; I really wanted to like this book.
Furthermore, I’d heard great things about Susan Hill’s work and figured that there was a good chance she’d be able to do the continuation of the story justice.
Oh boy, was I sorely mistaken. I should have lowered my expectations as I went in.
-There are no redeeming qualities to this book aside from it being quite effective in putting me to sleep.
Mrs de Winter has seen zero development, is painfully dull & mostly serves as an annoying inconvenience to the story. The prose is clumsy; littered with so many commas that I wonder if Hill had a bucketful of them and threw it on the text to figure out where they’d go. Excruciatingly long descriptions galore, be they of trees, light, birds, flowers, etc that are repeated to the point where I wonder if she was paid by the word.
There’s no reason the story should be this much of a drag; the premise is good enough with a spooky note signed ‘R’, Maxim’s guilt, old adversaries coming back for vengeance.. what we get instead is a tensionless mess that did not warrant its 374 pages. Take away the inane non-conversations & pointless descriptive text and you might have a more palatable novella. I don’t know, maybe Susan Hill became stuck in trying to emulate du Maurier’s writing to the point that she lost track of the story?
The fact that the du Maurier estate signed off on this load of limp, slimy noodles is beyond me. If you’re thinking about picking up a Susan Hill book, don’t go for this one.
————
I enjoyed du Maurier’s Rebecca and had high hopes for this one as well; I really wanted to like this book.
Furthermore, I’d heard great things about Susan Hill’s work and figured that there was a good chance she’d be able to do the continuation of the story justice.
Oh boy, was I sorely mistaken. I should have lowered my expectations as I went in.
-There are no redeeming qualities to this book aside from it being quite effective in putting me to sleep.
Mrs de Winter has seen zero development, is painfully dull & mostly serves as an annoying inconvenience to the story. The prose is clumsy; littered with so many commas that I wonder if Hill had a bucketful of them and threw it on the text to figure out where they’d go. Excruciatingly long descriptions galore, be they of trees, light, birds, flowers, etc that are repeated to the point where I wonder if she was paid by the word.
There’s no reason the story should be this much of a drag; the premise is good enough with a spooky note signed ‘R’, Maxim’s guilt, old adversaries coming back for vengeance.. what we get instead is a tensionless mess that did not warrant its 374 pages. Take away the inane non-conversations & pointless descriptive text and you might have a more palatable novella. I don’t know, maybe Susan Hill became stuck in trying to emulate du Maurier’s writing to the point that she lost track of the story?
The fact that the du Maurier estate signed off on this load of limp, slimy noodles is beyond me. If you’re thinking about picking up a Susan Hill book, don’t go for this one.
November 4, 2019
Sicuramente l'autrice ha studiato attentamente lo stile, la Du Murier e tutte le sue altre opere, si avverte, però...
Però non mi è piaciuto, con questo libro ho capito che la peculiarità della Du Maurier è lasciare piccoli o grandi dubbi, che devono rimanere irrisolti.
Ho davvero apprezzato invece i libri originali di Susan Hill, dei romanzi gotici davvero intriganti.
Però non mi è piaciuto, con questo libro ho capito che la peculiarità della Du Maurier è lasciare piccoli o grandi dubbi, che devono rimanere irrisolti.
Ho davvero apprezzato invece i libri originali di Susan Hill, dei romanzi gotici davvero intriganti.
February 27, 2022
Beautifully written and so very satisfying. Susan Hill is the best ghost story writer ever (The Woman in Black). She has a gift that matches Hitchcock for suspense, insightful mind-bending, and atmospheric brilliance. Mrs. De Winter (sequel to Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca) has a power that does not let you down. Loved the ending because it was so perfectly written and poignant. I felt like I was reading Daphne du Maurier the whole time. Hill remained true to the character of the new Mrs. De Winter in that, yes, the woman is overwhelmed with fear of Mrs. Danvers and the ghost of Rebecca, fear of life and all its shadows, a woman who makes all the wrong choices, but drives the story deeper to expose the despicable Maxim de Winter. While Maxim is a tad warmer than what he was in Rebecca, you still want to kick him down the stairs for his arrogance and cowardice. I have to disagree with most of the 1-star reviews that have faulted Hill for not giving Mrs. De Winter more spine and aggression. She’s not your modern woman using self-esteem for her fuel. Yet, she does find how to live in her own shoes. Does she grow? Yes, but not in the cliché way you might expect. More than “fan fiction” this story is a delicious return to the haunting and sadness that is the curse of Manderley. And how Mrs. De Winter’s innocence sparks the justice Maxim has coming to him. Now it’s Maxim who is afraid of the shadow. I loved it! In the end, she drives the story to its inevitable ending. Dark, dreamy, and pervasive. I read this book via my local library. Recommended. Paula Cappa is an avid book reviewer and an award-winning supernatural mystery author of novels and short stories. paulacappa.wordpress.com
January 7, 2011
This wasn't a bad follow-up to Rebecca, and I suppose it could have been a lot worse, but what I missed the most was the eerie, breathless tension of du Maurier's original story. There was no sense of urgency, very little menace, and not much of a plot to tie the whole thing together. I wasn't really compelled to finish this book, merely curious to see how things turned out for the de Winters after all. It didn't move the same way its predecessor did (in fact, it felt downright clunky at times), and what should have seemed like a moving climax was tempered by the fact that you can't even see the events building up to that point. In my review for Rebecca, I said the story was hair-raising and unpredictable, and sadly, that's not the case for Mrs. De Winter. While Susan Hill certainly has the feel for the original, she can't quite pull of her sequel with such finesse. I've got to give her credit, though; she made my soft spot for Maxim even softer.
July 27, 2020
Absolutely faultless, I felt like I was reading Daphne du Maurier with Susan Hills haunting portrayal and densely descriptive, lavish scene-setting.
Rebecca is an all time favourite of mine and I felt like Susan did it justice with a seamless sequel.
When I wasn’t reading Mrs de WinterI was thinking about reading it and when I was I lost hours wrapped in the book.
The ending was everything it needed to be and I felt a sense of satisfaction. There was never going to be a happy-sunshine ending for the de Winters, that was never in the question when it comes to the story of Rebecca or the sequel.
Both books will sit on my shelves for years to come and be read countless more times, that is unquestionable!
Rebecca is an all time favourite of mine and I felt like Susan did it justice with a seamless sequel.
When I wasn’t reading Mrs de WinterI was thinking about reading it and when I was I lost hours wrapped in the book.
The ending was everything it needed to be and I felt a sense of satisfaction. There was never going to be a happy-sunshine ending for the de Winters, that was never in the question when it comes to the story of Rebecca or the sequel.
Both books will sit on my shelves for years to come and be read countless more times, that is unquestionable!
April 18, 2017
Horrible sequel. Don't even bother.
September 24, 2019
The ending of Daphne Du Maurier’s novel Rebecca, ended in a way that allows for an endless number of possibilities following it. However, Susan Hill manages to pick out the dullest, most uninteresting of these possibilities.
The de Winter’s deserved more than what Hill has to offer. The excitement and curiosity that surrounds the married couple is absolutely lost due to the events (or lack thereof) in this sequel. Rebecca wasn’t exactly action packed but was still an enjoyable read that gripped you through the mystery of the late Rebecca. Mrs de Winter has nothing of note happen and means you have to force yourself to reach the underwhelming end of the novel. I found myself constantly wondering what the point of this novel was, as it offered nothing new or interesting to the characters or the story.
Mrs de Winter made for a lacklustre narrator. She shows no growth from the original and is honestly just annoying due to her choices and childish attitude. The original novel is so good at keeping the reader interested as we are in the same position as the narrator when it comes to uncovering Manderley’s secrets. The sequel lacks this as it just follows Mr & Mrs de Winter being depressed and the narrator’s tedious documentation of this.
What didn’t help was Hill’s writing style as she is so repetitive. How many times does the reader need to be reminded that Frank Crawley was a good friend in Manderley? Or that Maxim masks his emotions? The novel could easily be trimmed to a novella if these repetitions were removed. Also, any mention of the grandeur of Manderley seems tacky and cringey due to a repetition of the same sentiments towards the old house by different characters throughout.
Overall, this sequel does not do justice to Du Maurier’s fantastic novel. The possibilities for a sequel were endless, but you’re better off sticking to your own imagination as this novel lacks it.
The de Winter’s deserved more than what Hill has to offer. The excitement and curiosity that surrounds the married couple is absolutely lost due to the events (or lack thereof) in this sequel. Rebecca wasn’t exactly action packed but was still an enjoyable read that gripped you through the mystery of the late Rebecca. Mrs de Winter has nothing of note happen and means you have to force yourself to reach the underwhelming end of the novel. I found myself constantly wondering what the point of this novel was, as it offered nothing new or interesting to the characters or the story.
Mrs de Winter made for a lacklustre narrator. She shows no growth from the original and is honestly just annoying due to her choices and childish attitude. The original novel is so good at keeping the reader interested as we are in the same position as the narrator when it comes to uncovering Manderley’s secrets. The sequel lacks this as it just follows Mr & Mrs de Winter being depressed and the narrator’s tedious documentation of this.
What didn’t help was Hill’s writing style as she is so repetitive. How many times does the reader need to be reminded that Frank Crawley was a good friend in Manderley? Or that Maxim masks his emotions? The novel could easily be trimmed to a novella if these repetitions were removed. Also, any mention of the grandeur of Manderley seems tacky and cringey due to a repetition of the same sentiments towards the old house by different characters throughout.
Overall, this sequel does not do justice to Du Maurier’s fantastic novel. The possibilities for a sequel were endless, but you’re better off sticking to your own imagination as this novel lacks it.
February 13, 2019
A perfect sequel to Rebecca - I kept having to remind myself that this novel was not by Daphne du Maurier herself, it was so well written.
It is the same unnamed protagonist, 10 years later, she and Mr. de Winter return after seemingly aimlessly wandering from one foreign destination to the next, for the funeral of Maxim's sister, Beatrice.
They spend some more time traveling around the UK and decide to stay, when Mrs. de Winter falls in love with a property in the countryside, away from what remained of Manderly.
She is consumed with desire for this uninhabited estate, just as Daphne du Maurier was attached to Menabilly, the property in real life, where she renovated and lived, but never owned.
They still have enemies, real and imagined, that torment them. It's not so much action, but inner turmoil, that causes an unending sense of dread throughout the book.
I don't want to give away the ending, but it seemed a perfect way to make sense of everything that happened from the beginning of Rebecca to the end of the Mrs. de Winter book.
Highly recommended to people who love Daphne du Maurier and are still obsessed with Rebecca.
It is the same unnamed protagonist, 10 years later, she and Mr. de Winter return after seemingly aimlessly wandering from one foreign destination to the next, for the funeral of Maxim's sister, Beatrice.
They spend some more time traveling around the UK and decide to stay, when Mrs. de Winter falls in love with a property in the countryside, away from what remained of Manderly.
She is consumed with desire for this uninhabited estate, just as Daphne du Maurier was attached to Menabilly, the property in real life, where she renovated and lived, but never owned.
They still have enemies, real and imagined, that torment them. It's not so much action, but inner turmoil, that causes an unending sense of dread throughout the book.
I don't want to give away the ending, but it seemed a perfect way to make sense of everything that happened from the beginning of Rebecca to the end of the Mrs. de Winter book.
Highly recommended to people who love Daphne du Maurier and are still obsessed with Rebecca.
July 16, 2021
The biggest issue with this sequel is the total lack of development in the woman's character. She is desperate to get back to England after her and Maxim go back for his sister's funeral. (Not a plot spoiler). What I did find beautiful was Susan Hill's description of the natural world and this gave an obvious reason for Mrs de Winter (couldn't she at least be given a name by now?) wanting to return to England after 10 years drifting about the continent. It is a very long time since I have read "Rebecca". But I will find it and re-read it because surely Maxim wasn't as bad as he is in this story. Arrogant, selfish, unfeeling, totally living in his own world, and, it feels to me, still treating his new young wife like a toy he's bought in a shop somewhere. She is endlessly trying to placate him, make him happy, seeing to his every whim. The ending feels wrong. And I'm still left not really knowing who this woman really was.
March 10, 2009
I had high hopes for this book, as I had loved "Rebecca" so much, but I was quite disappointed. It seemed to drag on, and was quite slow through the majority of the book. The ending got exciting, but only to finish the story off on a low note. I do not recommend....especially to those who enjoyed "Rebecca." I suggest you keep whatever happy ending you envisioned for Maxim and Mrs. De Winter, and NOT read this book!
November 21, 2008
I absolutely loved Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier, and wished there was a sequel. So when I learned one had been written, I picked it up. It was not only nothing like what a sequel to Rebecca SHOULD have been, it was horrible writing, and the horrid unreadable font in the copy I had was so bad I couldn't even concentrate on the story. This should never have been written.
October 11, 2015
If you take out Mrs De Winter's description of the weather and the birds, this book would have 6 pages - duller than dirt.
March 30, 2019
A waste of time and money to purchase. Susan Hill is not du Maurier. Enough said.
May 6, 2024
Un rollazo.
September 6, 2009
I read this right after rereading Rebecca. It made me focus on aspects of du Maurier's novel to which I'd been somewhat oblivious. What does go through your head if you are married to a man who confesses to you that he killed his first wife? What sort of future could the couple have, given Maxim's guilt, and his wife's limitations. When I read Rebecca for the first time, I was perhaps 15, and completely identified with the gauche young girl attracted to the glamorous older man. From my current perspective, she seems horribly unable to grow and develop. Although Mrs. Dewinter is not a fun read, it seems absolutely an accurate projection of what sort of life in exile the couple would have after losing Manderly.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 416 reviews