Rebecca chapters 17-26

[Jonathan]

Cleo wrote: "Because I read it with "classic" in mind, my expectations were that much higher. It didn't live up to those expectations and I found it very weak. "

This is how I felt after reading The Law and the Lady. Because I love Dickens and Victorian Novels, I had high expectations for Wilkie's book. But, I was sadly disappointed. The two plots are very similar, but I think du Maurier's writing and storytelling abilities far surpass Collins'. But, I do know how you feel, because I felt the exact same way after The Law. I was actually indignant after reading it. That one, I hated. I have a list of reasons why, but I think that something in me, which I cannot explain, just found it to be a fake. I will not spoil the ending for those who have not read it, but by the end I was wishing that her husband was guilty if only to punish her for being such an idiot throughout the whole book. Not so with Rebecca. Even though I know he was wrong, totally unjustified, in committing the murder, I wanted Max to get off scot-free. I wanted to see the two become a happy couple and I viewed the two, Favell and Danvers, who were actually trying to aid justice, as the real villains. Somehow, there just seemed to be a real marriage and a real relationship between our nameless narrator and Maxim. In The Law and the Lady, there was nothing real about that marriage. It was clearly contrived, given no details, very little background information, and just a "filler" so to speak, so that Collins could get to his mystery story. Very poorly done, indeed. Here, at least du Maurier took the time to develop the relationship. I remember when the soon-to-be Mrs. de Winter told Max that she wished she could stop time, obviously because she was so happy being with him for their daily drives. It's little details like this, for me, which make the story somewhat believable and memorable. I've actually had those feelings when I was with someone I loved before. In The Law and the Lady, there were no feelings, just stupidity.

[Jonathan]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Well, she only has a few months to live anyway."

I assume you are referring to Rebecca. That's actually the one detail of the book, which I reject. I think the author threw that in at the last minute to justify Maxim's atrocious act. It came out of nowhere. Rebecca was a fighter, she wouldn't have purposely tried to get Max to kill her. From the character portrait we have to go off of, it is my opinion, she would have stood up and fought the disease like a woman!

I actually thought, when they were at the Doctor's house, that Frank had had the presence of mind the night before to call a wrong number on purpose and to send them to someone that they could rely upon to concoct a story. In short, I believed the Dr. to be in on the cover-up. This was not the actual person whom Rebecca had seen but a friend of either Frank's or Max's who was told beforehand that they were coming and what he should say. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is anything in the book to contradict my theory. Frank was loyal and he was quick-witted. In his place, would you have really called the right number? Dialing the right number would have been the equivalent of slinging the noose around Max's neck, whom he was obviously trying to save.

[Cleo]

Jonathan wrote: "Yeah, I guess that her preference of him being a murderer as opposed to a bereaved husband does leave some question marks as to her character and integrity. ..."

You know, all throughout this novel I found the characters reactions either extreme (requiring a leap of faith from the reader with alot of fill-in) or merely odd. I keep wondering if the development wasn't as bad as I think and du Maurier was trying to tell the reader something. The main characters (who are alive) are both extremely flawed and, while perhaps understandable, neither are very likeable.

I remember reading that Agatha Christie got thoroughly sick of Poirot and in the end (view spoiler)[was perhaps glad to kill him off (hide spoiler)]. I wonder if du Maurier's struggles with writing Rebecca prevented her from forming a connection with her characters, and perhaps she had to force their behaviour, making it less believable??? In any case, that supposition is merely my own flight of fancy. I want to like the book ...... I just can't .....

[Lobstergirl]

Jonathan wrote: "I assume you are referring to Rebecca. That's actually the one detail of the book, which I reject. I think the author threw tha..."

Well, you've got quite an imagination there. (Are we allowed to reject details the novelist supplies to us? On what grounds? I find that so strange.) But Rebecca having terminal cancer helps wrap everything up with a nice bow. Rebecca was vindictive enough that she would have tried to take Max down with her, if she could, by having Max kill her.

[Cleo]

Jonathan wrote: "This is how I felt after reading The Law and the Lady. Because I love Dickens and Victorian Novels, I had high expectations for Wilkie's book. But, I was sadly disappointed. The two plots are very similar, but I think du Maurier's writing and storytelling abilities far surpass Collins'...."

Yes, I can certainly see comparing Collins and du Maurier. For me, their writing lacks a certain polish and presence that is part of what constitutes a great book. Dickens can pull off exaggerations and absurdities and make them believable because he is a great writer. Collins misses the mark if your expectations are on the level of Dickens' prose. However, when I read The Woman in White, I read it as a gothic mystery so I really enjoyed (most of) it.

Thanks for your input, Jonathan. It's helping me sort this novel out a bit more in my mind and try to find something to appreciate. You have, however, made me curious about The Law and the Lady so I'll have to read it at some point, keeping your cautions in mind.

[Cleo]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Rebecca was vindictive enough that she would have tried to take Max down with her, if she could, by having Max kill her.
..."

Do you really think so, Lobstergirl? I know Rebecca was manipulative, vain, unfaithful, scheming, etc. but to try to get Maxim to kill her would be on the same level as Maxim's murder of her, where he uses her bad character for justification. Not quite normal ....

[Lobstergirl]

Yes, the only character more psychotic than Rebecca was Mrs. Danvers. Either of them were capable of anything, I think.

[Susan from MD]

First, thanks to everyone for your great comments. Even if we disagree on this book, it's discussions like this that brought me to GR in the first place!

Lobstergirl, that's how I see Mrs. Danvers and Rebecca - they were both scary people. The scene with Rebecca whipping the horse was so difficult to read and I think really captured who she was. She wasn't just a superficial, spoiled socialite, she was a nasty piece of work.

Regarding whether Rebecca would have fought the disease or baited Max into killing her - I go with the latter. I don't really see her as a strong fighter; IMO she had a limited arsenal. I see her as someone who used her beauty and vivaciousness to manipulate and control to get her own way. She couldn't use those against disease and she probably assumed that as her beauty and vitality faded, so would her ability to control people and the situation. She has already starting to fade - as Max noted her fatigue when he confronted her that night. I think she would have wanted to go out in some spectacular way, not to fade away or think that people were pitying her. At that time, cancer was a death sentence - there was really no fighting the disease.

I think she saw pushing Max to kill her would be her way to go out in glory - "beautiful Rebecca, so full of life, brutally murdered by her insanely jealous husband" or some such tale was a better story line than "poor Rebecca, who had once been so beautiful and full of life, to be die slowly over several months from a horrible illness."

Cleo, you mentioned the main characters as not being very likable - I assume this is #2 and Maxim? If so, I think this may be part of where our different experiences come from. I liked both #2 and Maxim, and I wanted them to succeed. Maxim was a challenging character - so full of anger and guilt - and was an idiot for not telling #2, perhaps on their honeymoon before coming to Manderley so that she would be prepared, that a) Rebecca was no saint and b) that there were some problems with marriage #1. He wouldn't have had to go into detail but at least let her know that there had been some issues. In the absence of this, #2 (and seriously? could du Maurier not give at least a nickname - Bunny, Lovey, something??) built up this image and story in her head where Rebecca was perfect and she was inferior. Everything she heard was through that lens, so the hints that Frank and Beatrice tossed out about Rebecca and the marriage fell on deaf ears - she interpreted everything through a poorly/incompletely designed filter, IMO.

It's been great hearing everyone's thoughts - in some ways it's much more fun when we disagree about a book or a character!

[Denise]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I am actually quite surprised to find so many negative comments about it here. I thought everyone would enjoy it immensely. "

Agreed."

Me, three. I've discussed this novel before, and most people seem to like it. I'm sorry that it hasn't made a good impression this time around for a number of you.

[Denise]

Susan wrote: "What always surprises me about the ball and the gown is that she listened to Mrs. Danvers, who steered her toward that particular dress/paining. If the person who had been less than welcoming (or w..."

I think that at that point she was still convinced that Maxim had been deeply in love with Rebecca, and that she was generally much admired. Even though Mrs. Danvers was so intimidating and she was afraid of her, it seemed like a good idea to bring back what she thought was a happy memory for Maxim. She thought if she could be more like Rebecca, Maxim might pay more attention to her.

[Denise]

Susan wrote: "Regarding whether Rebecca would have fought the disease or baited Max into killing her - I go with the latter. I don't really see her as a strong fighter; IMO she had a limited arsenal. I see her as someone who used her beauty and vivaciousness to manipulate and control to get her own way. She couldn't use those against disease and she probably assumed that as her beauty and vitality faded, so would her ability to control people and the situation. She has already starting to fade - as Max noted her fatigue when he confronted her that night. I think she would have wanted to go out in some spectacular way, not to fade away or think that people were pitying her. At that time, cancer was a death sentence - there was really no fighting the disease.

I think she saw pushing Max to kill her would be her way to go out in glory - "beautiful Rebecca, so full of life, brutally murdered by her insanely jealous husband" or some such tale was a better story line than "poor Rebecca, who had once been so beautiful and full of life, to be die slowly over several months from a horrible illness.""

I agree. I definitely think that Rebecca purposely drove Max into killing her, rather than endure a lingering and painful death.

[Jonathan]

Denise wrote: "Even though Mrs. Danvers was so intimidating and she was afraid of her, it seemed like a good idea to bring back what she thought was a happy memory for Maxim. She thought if she could be more like Rebecca, Maxim might pay more attention to her. "

I think she was unaware of the happy memories aspect. It seemed she had no idea until after she had worn the dress that Rebecca had donned similar apparel at her last ball.

As for her listening to Mrs. D, I think that her reasoning was obvious and logical. Mrs. Danvers was shown to command respect around the house even from Maxim himself. Why should she not wear what Mrs. D suggests?

[Tom]

I'm reading Mrs. de Winter by Susan Hill - among dozens of other books - which is a continuation of Ms. du Maurier's work. The characters of Rebecca are all resuscitated and continued. My only observation so far is that it is professionally plotted, written and edited.
Has anyone else read this book?

[Denise]

I haven't read that one, Tom, but I recently read Rebecca's Tale by Sally Beaumont, that takes place twenty years later, and I thought that it was excellent.

[Pip]

And if anyone wants to see a comedy prequel based on the Hitchcock film, Mitchell and Webb do a grand job of it: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-SlebF...

[Alana]

I haven't read any of the posts above, as I don't want to spoil the ending, but I just finished chapter 18 and boy! Weird, weird stuff happening in this house! I'm wondering if that scene even really took place at all or if our Narrator dreamed it or is going mad or was already mad and just imagined it. Or is Mrs. Danvers really that messed up? Back to the reading to find out!

[Alana]

Jonathan wrote: "Lobstergirl wrote: "Well, she only has a few months to live anyway."

I assume you are referring to Rebecca. That's actually the one detail of the book, which I reject. I think the author threw tha..."

Jonathan, I had this thought as well, that Frank must have somehow set something up to nicely remove the suspicion from Maxim. There is no way to prove that one way or another, of course, but it just wrapped up entirely too neatly for me, especially considering since he was a "woman's specialist" that naturally he had told her she was pregnant and Favell was the father, thus the big news she had to share with him. Frankly, I think that makes a lot more sense and this other version rather concocted. It too neatly packages everything up.

I'm giving this book a lot of credit, because honestly, I'm baffled. Many aspects of the writing were poor, I felt like I was reading something more like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, in which the narrator sounds perfectly normal until having a complete delusion for a few minutes. The relationship between the two felt odd the entire time, especially after he revealed his secret. The way it seemed like the whole time she was slowly turning into Rebecca was both creepy and obvious. Yet I really enjoyed reading it. I enjoyed picking it up, getting pulled into the story, loathed myself for being lured into rooting for the "bad guy" and couldn't wait to read more. It's a strange combination of Cuckoo, Jane Eyre, a Sherlock Homes mystery and a really twisted Jane Austen novel.

I hadn't thought about comparisons to Collins, but that makes sense. I really loved The Woman in White, so perhaps I need to read more by both of these authors. It's refreshing to enjoy reading a classic so much; so many of them don't have the lively story to keep them going. But I think what's going to roll around in my head for awhile yet is the whole psychological thriller aspect of it; who do we root for, why, what difference will it make in the end? What's right, what's wrong? du Maurier did an amazing job of twisting the story around so we were rooting for the murderer, that can be very challenging to pull off convincingly. So many thoughts to ponder...

[Denise]

"It's a strange combination of Cuckoo, Jane Eyre, a Sherlock Homes mystery and a really twisted Jane Austen novel."

I love that description!