Rebecca chapters 17-26

[Jenn, moderator]

Please discuss chapters 17-26.

[Mary Ellen]

I just finished "Rebecca" and, although the ending saddened me, I was happy with the way Mr. and Mrs. deW's relationship turned out.
To me, it really is a timeless lesson of following your heart and not worrying about the opinions of others in the things that matter to you the most.
Maxim allowed his first "wife" to mentally and verbally abuse him because he worried about the headlines and talk of people. The narrator worried about not being well-bred or fitting in, believing comments made by her former employer. She and he imagined what the other was thinking instead of telling each other their true feelings.
When Max and the narrator finally began to communicate with each other they were able to put the superficial people in their lives to the side and focus on their life together. They were able to make a fresh start.
Of course, it isn't going to be "happily ever after". This is just the beginning of a lifetime of honesty and communication to keep it working. I don't think that requirement has changed from the time this book was written and today.
As far as the characters, at first I disliked Maxim because I thought he married Mrs. deW because he felt her naivety and shyness would make her easy to dominate and control. I sympathized with the narrator because I remember what it was like to be so young (many years ago) and unsure, just going out into the world. Mrs. Danvers was hateful and psychotic and frankly, if I were the narrator, I would have feared for my life. Then Favell enters the scene and I found him creepy and disgusting from the start. Throw "well-bred" Rebecca in for good measure, and it's a wonder Maxim didn't kill the lot of them.

[[deleted user]]

I haven't finished yet (just into ch. 22), but I really don't like how Max got to treat our Protagonist rather shabbily early on and now that he has 'confessed his dark secret' as well as his 'poor me' party, he gets to be forgiven for treating our Protagonist poorly and she just accepts that it was ok for him to do so. Well, of course, because he is a flawed hero and none of it was his fault and he couldn't help acting like a jack*** so there is no need for him to take ownership of his behavior. That whole scene where he was telling her the big secret was all about him playing the tragic victim of Rebecca ... yuck!

That part aside, I'm really enjoying how the plot has developed and the delicious twist! While they are waiting for the inquest has heightened the tension beautifully. I feel like the author has done a terrific job of consistently escalating the tension throughout the novel.

[Mary Ellen]

Kim, I agree with you about the development of the plot. It escalates and then when you think it hits it's peak it escalates again. When you finish the book I'd be interested to hear what you think of the ending.

I agree that Maxim didn't have to be another victim of Rebecca. If I were him I would have thrown her out in the street where she belonged and let the whole world see who she really was. Why he put up with years of her I'll never know.

After reading Rebecca I would like to read something else by du Maurier. Anyone have any suggestions?

[Lobstergirl]

A lot of people seem to like My Cousin Rachel. I find the quality of her novels very mixed. Some of them are awful.

[Cleo]

Mary Ellen wrote: " agree that Maxim didn't have to be another victim of Rebecca. If I were him I would have thrown her out in the street where she belonged and let the whole world see who she really was. Why he put up with years of her I'll never know..."

It's funny though how du Maurier makes us sympathize with Maxim when it was he who murdered Rebecca. The sympathy, at least for this act, should be the other way around.

I was very shocked by Mrs de Winter II's reaction when Maxim confessed his crime.

..... I did not care about his shame. None of the things that he had told me mattered to me at all. I clung to one thing only, and repeated it to myself, over and over again. Maxim did not love Rebecca. He had never loved her, never, never. They had never known one moment's happiness together. Maxim was talking and I listened to him, but his words meant nothing to me. I did not really care ...... "

She didn't care about Maxim's shame? She did not care how he murdered another human being in cold blood? His words meant nothing to her? REALLY?!!! And apparently she "loves" him so much she wished that every moment with his first wife was one of severe unhappiness and discontent. And that is love?!! I was floored by this. Honestly she sounds like she's slightly unhinged. And then all of a sudden, after being completely subservient to everyone she does a complete about face and begins to take charge? There was no development here at all.

I must admit I'm really struggling with this book. The characters actions often don't seem real, as if duMaurier was forcing them to advance the plot. Does anyone else feel this way?

[[deleted user]]

@Cleo - I sympathize with your dilemma. I think the reason why our Protagonist *has* to cling to Maxim is because she had no identity of her own. Instead, she pinned her identity to Maxim. She makes me think of a neglected puppy. She is so desperate for his attention that she is willing to 'overlook' any and all flaws. She even, rightly I think, believes that if she shows absolute acceptance of Maxim that she will bind him closer to her emotionally.

I had such a hard time initially. I realized that: 1) there are certain archetypes, for good or ill, that are used for this style of writing; and 2) that I have been reading a lot of strong, confident, determined, secure female characters lately and that it was rather jarring to encounter our protagonist here. The contrast was ... wide.

There is a lot of co-dependent and generally ookie undertones in the book. I tried to view as the author pointing out these gross gender dynamics rather than celebrating them. That helped me a lot.

[Cleo]

Kim wrote: "@Cleo - I sympathize with your dilemma. I think the reason why our Protagonist *has* to cling to Maxim is because she had no identity of her own. Instead, she pinned her identity to Maxim. She m..."

Kim, thank you so much for trying to help me out. I appreciate it.

I definitely see the point of your first paragraph. Even while I struggled with the narrator throughout the book, I did realize she was meant to be portrayed in this manner. What really bothered me was the horrific nature of what had been done, yet Mrs. de Winter II still acted like a schoolgirl with a crush. To me, this action (her response to the murder) crossed boundaries over to the "kooky" side. Even Maxim, I believe, said at one point he did not regret what he had done. So does that mean that it's okay to murder a heartless and faithless spouse? Wow!

You make a very good point ----- we're all affected by what we've been reading recently. Why I'm so annoyed with this book is because I've been reading a number of novels where a character does something blatantly wrong but is given some excuse or the readers themselves try to put it in a better light. So that said, I probably wouldn't have had such a strong reaction if my recent reads were less controversial books.

I'm glad to see, though, that I'm not the only one who has had a challenge trying to wrap my brain around the characters' personalities and actions.

Thanks again! :-)

[[deleted user]]

@Cloe - You are most welcome!

[Pip]

I'm assuming that this section should take us up to the end of the book - so chapter 27 rather than 26. But just in case, there will be SPOILERS!!!!!!!! in this post relating to the final chapter.

I had a lot of problems with this novel. Cleo, your point about lack of character development and then a sudden turnaround on the part of Mrs D W II was just one of them. Here are the basic issues I had. I won't go into details, as I'll save them for when I need to defend my opinion!!!!

There were too many actions and changes of character which seemed to me to be bizarre, out-of-the blue, inexplicable, even by the end of the novel and the revelation of Rebecca's true character and the manner or her death.

I STILL can't understand what motivated Maxim to latch onto her and then propose. His coldness and lack of concern for the narrator - certainly a lack of love - until his admission of guilt makes no sense.

The narrator's rambling imaginings and insecurities were well depicted, but I just felt that there were too many. After a while I felt like screaming "ok ok!! I get the idea! Stop patronising me!!"

The scenes when Mrs Danvers freaks out struck me as horribly cliched. She was a very cliched character in general. I haven't seen Downton Abbey, but I can imagine the textbook scary housekeeper.

Comparisons with Jane Eyre are so inevitable that they must have been intentional, but the final scene (SPOILER REMINDER) was such a direct reference that I actually felt a bit embarrassed for the author.

Admittedly there are some beautifully written passages, such as the first chapter and the description of the dream approaching Manderley - but for me they stuck out like sore thumbs, almost as if they were creative writing exercises that du Maurier decided to slip in.

It's a shame, because I think the story itself is very good; I've since watched the 1940 film and the US mini series and, unusually for me, felt that the story worked better translated to the screen. Perhaps part of the problem is the pacing; yes, we need to participate in the build-up of the narrator's anxieties and insecurities, but very little actually happens until we get to chapter 19, the discovery of the body, and then it's a mad action-packed, Grisham-like dash to the end. Odd.

Ok - rant over for the time being! Bring on the counter-arguments ;-)

[LadyDisdain]

I have to agree with you on a lot of things, Hederahelix. Things just got a little baffling by the end, and by things, I really mean the characterization. Especially the characterization of the protagonist. The plot does get a little tense, and everything's very climactic, with things happening one after the other. (view spoiler)[ What really bothered me was the fact that Max's crime doesn't seem to really affect our narrator in any other way than to trigger relief in her because he didn't love Rebecca. She doesn't really have a moral battle within herself about that at all, and it left such an obvious hole in the narrative I think. (hide spoiler)] Du Maurier is said to have thought this the weakest of her works and I can see why. I guess its 'sensationalism' is what's made so popular over the years.

As to Maxim's marrying Rebecca, I didn't think there was anything questionable about that. People often married simply because the intended has a good family background and has a good position in society. It just seemed like the pairing of two social elites to me, and something that most likely would have run smoothly had Rebecca been what she seemed to be.

[Pip]

I absolutely agree with you on the Maxim-Rebecca marriage, LadyDisdain. I meant that I couldn't understand the latching onto and proposing to the second Mrs de Winter in Montecarlo. Re-reading my previous comment, I can see how it was misleading - My bad, as I believe the youngsters say ;-)

Maybe we should invent a name for Mrs d W number two for the purpose of our discussions, in order to avoid further confusion?! (Huuuuuuuuuge, shocked intake of breath from the audience).
I suggest Lettice.

[Denise]

Didn't the narrator say that she was named after her father? And also that it is a name that is often misspelled. Or am I imagining things? I can see Lettice being misspelled! Although I can't imagine it as a man's name.

[Lobstergirl]

It could be a feminized version of a man's name. When she tells it to Maxim, doesn't he comment on how lovely a name it is?

[Cleo]

Hederahelix wrote: "I'm assuming that this section should take us up to the end of the book - so chapter 27 rather than 26. But just in case, there will be SPOILERS!!!!!!!! in this post relating to the final chapter.
..."

Yes, thank you, Hederahelix! This is almost exactly what I was feeling. The pacing is wrong, the development is lacking and the characters often acted illogically. Again, I felt everything was contrived to move the plot along.

Apparently du Maurier had trouble writing this novel. She was in Egypt with her husband and had just signed a book deal but she ended up struggling with her writing, saying, "The first 15,000 words I tore up in disgust and this literary miscarriage has cast me down rather..." and "I'm ashamed to tell you that progress is slow on the new novel," she wrote to him. "There is little likelihood of my bringing back a finished manuscript in December." I felt a battle to get plot and characters to work; often certain actions seemed forced to me.

As for the Maxim-narrator relationship, did anyone notice how many times their relationship was likened to that of a dog and its master? She often sat at his feet and there were a couple of instances where his treatment of her was compared to his treatment of Jasper or to a treatment he would give a dog. Weird!

[Lobstergirl]

As for the Maxim-narrator relationship, did anyone notice how many times their relationship was likened to that of a dog and its master? She often sat at his feet and there were a couple of instances where his treatment of her was compared to his treatment of Jasper or to a treatment he would give a dog. Weird!

Yes, I definitely noticed that, although I didn't think it was all that odd given the literary conventions of the genre fiction of the day. What I did find odd was the one time she told Maxim she would accept any kind of relationship from him, even if they could only be friends, or if she could be like a "boy" to him.

[Phil]

My full Good Reads review of Rebecca:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

[Lobstergirl]

Now that you've finished reading Rebecca, there's trivia on it. Trivia on the left, quizzes on the right.

http://www.goodreads.com/trivia/work/...

[Tom]

I have the impression that we are forgetting the first two chapters in which we are introduced to the adult narrator, the partner in the marriage, not the innocent debutante in life narrator who offers us the entire book in flashback. We know who she will become, but seemingly have forgotten under the press of the story. The narrator in the flashback is a canvas on which all the others write each day but little remains at sunset as she returns to her unassertive personality. But that is merely the bud of the flower she will become, which we already know from the first two chapters. The trick is negative capability, holding two incompatible representations at the same time. The narrator at the beginning is the narrator at the end, of course, but we must add some time for her to bcome an adult. The narrator during the entire flashback stays more or less the same - it's very brief in time - and is timid, fearful, unassertive and overwhelmed by experiences she has no skill at absorbing. Then off screen and some time and she bcomes the person in Chapters one and two.
Random thoughts.

[Phil]

In the first two chapters I thought that Maxim was blind - must have been her reading to him all the time - but then there was nothing at the end to suggest that had happened.

I think the problem is that there's pretty much nothing showing how flashback narrator turned into opening narrator other than the destruction of Manderley. They're too different.

[Phil]

On another tack - the ending was a disappointment. We'd been wading through treacle getting through the Doctor's appointment and the blackmail with Favell and then I have to say that I was expecting a rather better denouement than we got.

[Tom]

Phil wrote: "In the first two chapters I thought that Maxim was blind - must have been her reading to him all the time - but then there was nothing at the end to suggest that had happened.

I think the problem..."
I agree, Phil. The ending is abrupt. Since it is also suddenly separated from the two people in the scene, it leaves me at least puzzled...unless I remember chapters 1-2. Then, though there is a gap in the state of the two people, it at least relates, explaining the first 2 chapters. A curious method, but judging from the popularity of the book, effective.
I also had the impression in chapters 1-2 that Maxim was blind. I read the book perhaps 3 times over 40 years, and before rereading it again now, I began assuming he was blind. I've no idea where that impression comes from since, other than the reading thing, there is no indication.

[G]

As an older person, I can tell you it was not uncommon for couples to read to one another while driving, coming across a great passage, or just to share a moment. Those scenes early on actually made me feel there was a connection between the two of them, a closeness and affection. I lost this as she was speaking from memory. I thought it was a terrific plot device to show the transition in their relationship.

[Tom]

G wrote: "As an older person, I can tell you it was not uncommon for couples to read to one another while driving, coming across a great passage, or just to share a moment. Those scenes early on actually mad..."
G:
You're quite right about reading to one another. I just can't determine what caused the impression that Maxim was blind. A curious projection perhaps.
The shift in personality may be a device used by du Maurier, or just a cut and patch job. The first chapters are substantially different from the long flashback which is the book. And there is no return. Mandeley burns, and that's it. The rest is silence and looks to memory to complete the blank left at the end. It's easy to find faults within the book, but millions of readers have voted with their eyes to place it among the best in class. So I just have to accept what we are given. Someone posted that du Maurier confessed to huge problems in writing the book and certainly there are structural and character exposition problems which are probably unsolvable. The whole is, in short, more than the sum of its parts.

[G]

Tom wrote: "G wrote: "As an older person, I can tell you it was not uncommon for couples to read to one another while driving, coming across a great passage, or just to share a moment. Those scenes early on ac..."

Tom you are absolutely right about the whole being greater, but after reading these comments, I do remember an aloofness and remove in those early scenes almost as if the early Monte Carlo haze she was in has continued to 'post-Manderley'. I also remember reading somewhere that he was disfigured running into Manderley as it blazed (I don't remember the movie, which I didn't really like so maybe it was referencing that). If that was part of it, somehow, then the blindness makes sense.

[Tom]

Mary Ellen wrote: "I just finished "Rebecca" and, although the ending saddened me, I was happy with the way Mr. and Mrs. deW's relationship turned out.
To me, it really is a timeless lesson of following your heart ..."
Remember that the Narrator is now going to spend the rest of her married life with a wife murderer - even in the 30's there were other ways of divorce if you were rich - which since he confessed to that makes her an accessory. However dependent she is on him, he is equally dependent on her, and as time passes, his dependency will grow larger. Hopefully he won't want a divorce. In short, these folks have histories that make for an unpredictable future. To assume the fairy tale "they lived happily ever after" is a leap of credulity.

[Tom]

G wrote: "Tom wrote: "G wrote: "As an older person, I can tell you it was not uncommon for couples to read to one another while driving, coming across a great passage, or just to share a moment. Those scenes..."
@G
The first two chapters indicate a marriage that is both convenient as well as comfortable for the two expatriates. When the flashback begins, the Narrator returns to a schoolgirl mentality from which she only begins to emerge when Maxim confesses he murdered his first wife. She never becomes the woman in the first 2 chapters and we have to build that bridge in our memories without written assistance.
The blindness thing may have something to do with movies, but it has nothing in the first chapters. And as far as running into the burning Manderley, that doesn't occur in the book which ends with the distant sight of the crimson. "And the ashes blew towards us with the salt wind from the sea." Good sturdy monosyllabic prose that Gertrude Stein would have approved.

[Denise]

G wrote: "I also remember reading somewhere that he was disfigured running into Manderley as it blazed (I don't remember the movie, which I didn't really like so maybe it was referencing that). If that was part of it, somehow, then the blindness makes sense."

Could this be confusion with Jane Eyre? The burning of Manderley is reminiscent of the burning of Thornfield, in which Rochester was blinded in the way you describe.

[Dolores, co-moderator]

I also found the ending to be a little abrupt. Then I went back and reread the first 2 chapters and it sort of brought it back in like a complete circle for me.

[Susan from MD]

The version I have has some notes at the end and apparently the first couple of chapters (or at least parts of them) were initially written as an epilogue, but then were moved to the opening of the book.

I didn't have as much difficulty with the book or it's characterizations. To me, they made sense - her progression from a shy, young woman who fell for a man who was challenging to say the least. She is put in situation for which she is completely unprepared and then she has to deal with Mrs. Danvers and finds out that her husband has committed a terrible crime.

To me, it speaks to her youth, unhappiness and loneliness when she focuses on the "I love you darling" part of Maxim's revelation rather than the "I killed my wife". She must have been really stressed - I'd have been focusing on the latter part of the sentence! After that, she had to grow up and stop focusing on her internal musings. It seems like she and Maxim came out as partners, so it's kind of a happy ending in that sense.

I think it's hard to see Maxim's motivation for staying with Rebecca, but times were different and, while divorce was possible, it was certainly less accepted than it is now. And there's the whole British upper class thing. Although killing Rebecca was not right, she knew how to push his buttons and I think she wanted to control her death. Frankly, I think I'm with Mary Ellen (above) in contemplating the merits of loading Mrs. Danvers and Favell onto the boat along with Rebecca. I don't often have murderous thoughts, but these were not nice people, er, characters!

[G]

Denise wrote: "G wrote: "I also remember reading somewhere that he was disfigured running into Manderley as it blazed (I don't remember the movie, which I didn't really like so maybe it was referencing that). If ..."

I am sure that's it. Thanks!

[Pip]

I can't agree that this story has a happy ending. Mrs d W 2 seems to have exchanged living abroad looking after a very demanding person for ... living abroad with someone no less demanding albeit in a very different way. Apart from the fact that Maxim is a murderer, the narrator seems condemned to live from hotel to hotel reading to, cleaning up after and simpering over someone who - once again - doesn't seem to be giving much of himself in return.

It also struck me that, on re-reading chapter 2, that the narrator is STILL living in a fantasy world; previously she invented conversations in her head about what others were thinking of her and now she seems to have totally reinvented her time at Manderley. Otherwise I don't understand her waxing lyrical about the places charms when she only spent 3 months there, and they were hardly the happiest of her not-very -happy life. I think that she was someone who yearned for a home, and that was what Max was offering her originally, but she soon realized that that home was never hers, and now she will never have one as long as she sticks with her husband.

One final point - I think max could have been fairly relaxed about her knowing his secret. He makes quite sure before he tells her that she is blindly in love with him, and a wife could not be forced to give evidence against her husband.

[Phil]

Hederahelix wrote: "It also struck me that, on re-reading chapter 2, that the narrator is STILL living in a fantasy world; previously she invented conversations in her head about what others were thinking of her and now she seems to have totally reinvented her time at Manderley. Otherwise I don't understand her waxing lyrical about the places charms when she only spent 3 months there, and they were hardly the happiest of her not-very -happy life."

Very true, and well spotted - she waxes on about how marvellous Manderley was and yet, between arriving and it burning down, she's only there a few months - and in that time she's almost persuaded to commit suicide, is emotionally abused by the housekeeper and servants, never gets out from under Rebecca's shadow, never feels at home, throws a disastrous party and is told that her husband murdered his first wife. She doesn't even get through a full gardening year.

The back of my copy say that the unnamed narrator is "one of the best loved heroines in English Literature" - which I take with the same amount of salt I apply when I hear of Wuthering Heights described as a great love story.

The Maxim's blind thing is from the fact that the narrator reads him everything, not just the snippets and she basically appears to be looking after him like an invalid in the opening chapters. Are we even told how long has passed between the fire and the opening of the book? - I don't think that we are.

[Cleo]

I agree with both Hederahelix and Phil. Again, I go back to the fact that du Maurier had difficulty writing this novel. I almost feel that she sketched out a plot and then made her characters fit it, no matter how unbelievable their actions were, and because she threw in a "love" story, a murder, a crazy housekeeper and a house that makes itself an entity, many people appreciated the shock value instead of looking for a well-crafted novel.

Here's something that I wrote from another post that is interesting:

As an exercise in I-don't-know-what, I tried taking out Mrs. de Winter II's narration and simply read what she was actually saying to people. Here are a few examples:

"Yes?" I said.

"Yes," I said.

"Yes," I said.

and another somewhat more lively conversation

"Not so very well," I said.

"No." I said.

"Very pretty," I said.

"I'm so glad," I said.

"No, I'm afraid I don't," I said.

"How nice," I said.

"Yes," I said.

"Really?" I said.


Painful, I said ...... ;-)

[Pip]

@Cleo A stunning bit of editing!!!! Put the way you just have, I'm even more incredulous that Max felt he wanted to spend more than high tea with her.

And on the subject of editing - I get the impression that this novel could have been infinitely improved by a good editor. I've also had the expression "well-crafted" in my mind for a while. The book is well-written in places, but poorly crafted.

@Phil On the subject of the gardening year - probably just as well she didn't get round to getting her hands muddy. I can imagine her uprooting all the rhodos and planting - I dunno - grass or something. Or maybe a rambling rose....

[Susan from MD]

I think she realized that Manderley could have been a wonderful place and she is wistfully looking at what might have been. She had finally started to feel more at home there - perhaps not completely, but it would have taken some time for anyone to settle in. Particularly after Maxim's "I hated Rebecca" moment, she was able to let go of some of her insecurities and understand the dynamics better. And they would have gotten rid of Mrs. Danvers!

I don't think she was truly emotionally abused by anyone other than Mrs. Danvers and Favell; for the others (and the people in the community), some of what she "felt" was really what she imagined they thought of her. They may have been rolling their eyes at her sometimes, but Frank and Frith were loyal to Maxim - not to Rebecca. Robert was a wild card, but I would guess that if Danny and Favell were not around, he would fall in line too. She seemed to get on well with Clarice and didn't have much contact with the rest of the staff.

I think had they been able to stay on at Manderley, she would have learned to fit in. It was the place that Maxim loved and so she would likely come to love it too - they were similar in both being sort of homebodies who liked to putter around the place. Maxim was respected and, it seems, liked in the community (beyond being the rich guy on the block) and I think the community would have liked her once they got to know her. I think Beatrice and Giles would have provided a bit of a support system, too, and might have come around more often. Plus, she and Frank seemed to get on well.

It seems to me that she was looking back and thinking that she was silly for assuming that people [didn't like her/didn't want her there/etc.]. Rewriting the past? Maybe to some extent, but in a positive way I think, as she grew as a person and came to understand that she was starting from a false premise - that everyone loved Rebecca. Maxim and those closest to him (Frank, Beatrice, Giles) certainly didn't.

I think the time frame from the first couple of chapters to the Manderley period was a number of years, as I think Maxim was going gray. I'm not sure whether this was in the "epilogue" in the notes at the end of my book or was in the opening chapters. I think he had been debilitated so he may have not been able to hold a book very well or might have been blind/sight-impaired.

[Kathy]

I would like to know how the author felt about Mrs. De Winters #2. My impression from the book was that her passive personality was desirable for a person in that social position. Unlike the flamboyant Rebecca, who while having a strong personality, must obviously sleep around and be a b***h. The reason I say this is that my grandmother who was a young woman in the '30s used to tell me that there was a difference between a "lady" and a "woman". We may be seeing a stereotype from the time period that the book was written.

[G]

I saw an SUV yesterday with the license plate MANDERLEY. I can only wonder why they thought to identify with the place or the novel or any of the characters.

[Jonathan]

Cleo wrote: "And then all of a sudden, after being completely subservient to everyone she does a complete about face and begins to take charge? There was no development here at all...The characters actions often don't seem real, as if duMaurier was forcing them to advance the plot. Does anyone else feel this way? ..."

No. I can't say that I do. I think she had an epiphany and the critical moment was when she realized she was about to lose everything. I think she is very clear as to why she finds it necessary to change: "My old fears, my diffidence, my shyness, my hopeless sense of inferiority, must be conquered now. If I failed now I should fail forever. There would never be another chance."

There definitely was plot build up to this metamorphosis. I think everyone reading this was probably saying to himself, "How long is she going to take this from Mrs. Danvers?" Nobody walks right in to a new situation and just takes over. It took her some time to gain her comfort, and after she did, she took the reins in a time of need. I don't think for one second she should have come to Manderley and showed them all who was boss now. But, after realizing that they were not respecting her, she did what she needed to do at a critical time. Max's confession changed her as well as the direction that their marriage was heading.

For those of you who think it strange that she loves him even though he is a murderer, I wonder if you have read The Law and the Lady, where the narrator was a woman and she spent the entire novel trying to prove his innocence. That one wasn't nearly as good as this book; not even in the same class. But, the plot outlines were very similar. Du Maurier may have read that book, stole the storyline, made it much, much better, and then ran with it.

[Jonathan]

Cleo wrote: " To me, this action (her response to the murder) crossed boundaries over to the "kooky" side...So does that mean that it's okay to murder a heartless and faithless spouse? Wow! ..."

When I was reading that part, I did wonder what other readers' opinion would be on him committing murder and then covering it up. I think he is in the wrong: morally, legally, religiously, etc. Notwithstanding, I was rooting for him to get away with it, the whole time. The reason being that the other two characters who were trying to trap him (Mrs. Danvers and Mr. Jack Favell) came off as much more wicked than Max. I think it is deplorable what Rebecca had done and what she was threatening to do to Max, but that is not grounds for murder.

[Jonathan]

Hederahelix wrote: "His coldness and lack of concern for the narrator - certainly a lack of love - until his admission of guilt makes no sense..."

I loved this book, from the beginning, for most of the middle, and definitely the last 100 pages or so. Nevertheless, I was struck with the same idea you presented here. This is what did not make sense to me. Why was he so withdrawn and indifferent from our narrator, until he decided to tell her that he had murdered Rebecca? Are we given to understand that withholding this deep, dark secret caused him to treat her heartlessly at times? If he hated Rebecca so much, why did it seem he was so upset over the broken wedding present? Or, was he just keeping up airs for the servants? Why close down the West Wing?

There are a lot of questions, but I really enjoyed the love story part of this and much more the mystery and suspense towards the end. I liked this much better than The Law and the Lady which I read recently (very similar, even more so than Jane Eyre). I am actually quite surprised to find so many negative comments about it here. I thought everyone would enjoy it immensely.

[Kathy]

Jonathan wrote: "Cleo wrote: " To me, this action (her response to the murder) crossed boundaries over to the "kooky" side...So does that mean that it's okay to murder a heartless and faithless spouse? Wow! ..."
The irony is if he had just waited a few months his life would have completely changed. Of course, he wouldn't have met Mrs. De Winters #2. Again we have the play between passive and assertive behavior. The author, in my opinion, seems to place higher value on passive behavior.

[Jonathan]

Kathy wrote: "The irony is if he had just waited a few months his life would have completely changed..."

When Max found out about her illness, he said something along the lines of: "Rebecca still one." Obvious to us now, but unbeknownst to him at the time, killing her was a terrible mistake. Her tricking him in to murder was a devious trick and I think he is right with what he said at the end. He gave in to anger and hatred and she won.

[Lobstergirl]

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

Agreed.

[Kathy]

SPOILER ALERT. That goes with what I mean about the passive/aggressive behavior. It seemed that any time someone took any action it ended poorly. Ms de Winter #2 doesn't listen to Max and climbs the rocks looking for Jasper leads to the finding of Rebecca's cottage on the beach. #2 decides to hold the ball and has the gown incident. Max confronts Rebecca and ends up killing her. Trying to dislodge the stranded boat leads to finding Rebecca's boat. Ect.,ect. All the way to the burning of Manderly. Maybe I am reading more into this than I should, but it reminds me of that saying about the nail that sticks out getting hammered!

[Susan from MD]

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 worse) suddenly started suggesting things to me, I would be a bit suspicious and would at least ask someone about it.

I am also surprised at the negative comments - everyone I know who has read the book has been very positive. Although there are some inconsistencies in the behavior of Maxim and #2, to me they are believable inconsistencies - people keep secrets and are afraid to share even with those they love. They were lucky that Rebecca's boat and body were found, as both were forced to open up to each other - they might have continued in that uncomfortable silence for years.

[Cleo]

Jonathan wrote: "Cleo wrote: "And then all of a sudden, after being completely subservient to everyone she does a complete about face and begins to take charge? There was no development here at all...The characters..."

Jonathan, I saw your comments in the other group and that you had given this book five stars so I was very curious as to your opinion!

I don't entirely disagree with you, however, what I feel that you are explaining (and I notice this often with readers of this book) is your understanding of Mrs. de Winter II's actions and this understanding is created by you (the reader) based on the very loose, undetailed and often absent character development. With all the responses I've read, I often see, "I can see as a young, immature girl she must have felt this because I remember when as a young girl I felt......" or "I think she would have felt this way ......" or "because she was this way at the beginning and that way now, this and this and this must have happened in between." To me, that is weak writing. We get so little from the author.

Now I'm not saying that the author has to explain everything to the reader but there has to be a weaving together of certain actions and situations for the story to be strong. In the scene you described, I can go as far as to concede that she might have had an ephiphany but there are so many areas in this novel where such grandiose leaps of belief are necessary that it seriously diminished the novel's worth in my eyes.

I wasn't one who was surprised that she loved him as a murderer. I can accept that. My surprise was that there was not one little glimmering of shock at his crime, not one ounce of concern for another human being (either Rebecca, or Maxim himself, if she cared about his soul, either in a theological context or even outside of that --- the effect that such an horrific act might have on him psychologically) but that her entire focus was on herself and what his act proved to her, to support her insecurities.

[Cleo]

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 worse) suddenly started suggesting things to me, I would be a bit suspicious and would at least ask someone about it...."

Yes, Susan, exactly! I also felt her reluctance to be influenced by/trust Frank was another inconsistency. Frank is Maxim's trusted manager and obviously a good person who tries to befriend her, yet she keeps him at arms length and little listens to his opinions. Very convenient for the story line though. :-)

In spite of my negative comments, I wouldn't say I hated this book. 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. If, however, I read it with the mindset of expecting writing on the same level as a Victoria Holt or Velda Johnson novel I probably would have said I enjoyed it.

[Jonathan]

Cleo wrote: "My surprise was that there was not one little glimmering of shock at his crime, not one ounce of concern for another human being (either Rebecca, or Maxim himself, if she cared about his soul, either in a theological context or even outside of that --- the effect that such an horrific act might have on him psychologically) but that her entire focus was on herself and what his act proved to her, to support her insecurities. "

When you put it that way she seems incredibly shallow and uncaring. Like her attitude was, "I am glad his depressed demeanor is so easily explained. I was afraid he still loved her, but it is only that he murdered her." 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.

[Lobstergirl]

Well, she only has a few months to live anyway.